Sanchez v. Freitas
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-07144
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Sanchez v. Freitas, Judge Gilliam granted Sanchez an extension to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2023.
The order directly affected plaintiff Julio Cesar Sanchez-Martinez by extending his deadline to file an amended complaint and setting requirements for that filing.
What happened
In Sanchez v. Freitas, the plaintiff asked for more time to file an amended complaint through a letter to the court.
The court granted the request and set March 31, 2023, as the filing deadline. It explained that the amended complaint must include all claims and defendants the plaintiff wishes to pursue and cannot refer back to the earlier complaint. If the plaintiff did not file a proper amended complaint on time, the action would be dismissed without further notice.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order, which terminated docket entry 9. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Freitas · No. 4:22-cv-07144
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
Julio Cesar Sanchez-Martinez sent the court a letter seeking additional time to file an amended complaint. The request was docketed as Dkt. No. 9.
Ruling
The court construed the letter as a request for an extension of time and granted it. Sanchez-Martinez was ordered to file his amended complaint by March 31, 2023.
The court reminded him that an amended complaint completely replaces prior complaints. He therefore had to include every claim he wished to present and every defendant he wished to sue in the amended complaint. He could not incorporate material from the earlier complaint by reference. The court warned that failing to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The clerk was ordered to send him two copies of the court's complaint form with the order.
The order terminated Dkt. No. 9. It did not resolve the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.