Mills v. City of Palo Alto
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-03330
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mills v. City of Palo Alto, Judge White denied a piecemeal amendment, allowed a complete amended complaint, and denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice.
Eric David Mills and the defendants, including the City of Palo Alto. The order also sets requirements and a deadline for any amended complaint Mills files.
What happened
In Mills v. City of Palo Alto, Eric David Mills, a California prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials. The court had previously found that the complaint stated legally recognized claims.
The court denied Mills’s request to file an amendment separately from the complaint. It granted him leave to file a complete amended complaint containing all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint was denied without prejudice to refiling or reinstatement if Mills did not file the amended complaint.
Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on September 12, 2023. Mills was given 28 days to file the amended complaint, and the court stated that further leave to amend would not be allowed.
The detailed version
- Mills v. City of Palo Alto · No. 4:23-cv-03330
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Eric David Mills, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had ordered the complaint served because, when read liberally, it stated claims the court considered legally cognizable. Mills then submitted a proposed amendment to the complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint.
Amendment ruling
The court denied leave to file the proposed amendment because the case could not effectively proceed through separate, piecemeal pleadings. The court explained that Mills could amend only by filing one complete amended complaint containing every claim and defendant he wished to pursue, including any claims from the original complaint that the court had found cognizable.
The court directed Mills to file the amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number specified in the order and include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, Mills could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to amend would result in dismissal of the claims in the original complaint and reinstatement of the defendants’ motion to dismiss; it also stated that further leave to amend would not be allowed. A reasonable extension could be granted if Mills showed good cause and requested it before the deadline passed.
Motion to dismiss and disposition
Because Mills sought to amend the complaint, the court determined that the defendants’ motion to dismiss might become moot. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling or reinstatement if Mills failed to file an amended complaint. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on September 12, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.