Herndon v. Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-01675
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Herndon v. Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate, Judge Breyer dismissed the action without prejudice after Gerrod L. Herndon failed to amend his civil-rights complaint.
Gerrod L. Herndon's federal civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice. The named defendants—Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate, and Ms. Murray Shortall—were affected by the closure of this action.
What happened
Gerrod L. Herndon sued Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate, and Ms. Murray Shortall under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that copyright, trademark, business-license, fishing-license, and other legal documents had not been honored, but he did not explain specific wrongdoing or connect the defendants to it.
The court previously dismissed the complaint and gave Herndon 28 days to file an amended complaint showing specific facts that a state actor had deprived him of a federal right. The court warned that failing to file a proper amendment would result in dismissal.
More than 28 days passed without an amended complaint or a request for more time. Judge Charles R. Breyer therefore dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Herndon v. Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate · No. 3:23-cv-01675
- Charles Breyer
- June 16, 2023
Background
Gerrod L. Herndon, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that he was a former state prisoner currently living at All Saints Extended Care, an assisted-living facility in San Rafael, California. He alleged that “copyright, trademark,” “business license and fishing license,” and “other legal documents have not been honored.”
Herndon named Impact/Oydessa Team Program, Probate, and licensed clinical social worker Ms. Murray Shortall as defendants. The complaint did not state facts describing specific wrongdoing or explain how either defendant was connected to any wrongdoing.
Earlier Order
On May 16, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint but allowed Herndon to amend it. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires specific facts showing how a state actor caused the deprivation of a federal right; conclusory allegations were insufficient. The court gave him 28 days to file a proper amended complaint and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal.
Ruling
More than 28 days passed after the May 16 order. Herndon did not file an amended complaint and did not request an extension of time. Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. The order did not decide whether Herndon’s underlying allegations were legally valid; it ended the action because he did not file the required amended complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.