Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2023

Brunskill v. Booth

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:23-cv-04077
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brunskill v. Booth, Judge Kim dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, requiring a proper amended complaint within 28 days.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Dylan Richey Brunskill, who was given 28 days to file an amended complaint. It also affected the claims and defendants in the case because only those included in the amended complaint would be considered, and the action would be dismissed if a proper amended complaint was not filed.

What happened

In Brunskill v. Booth, Dylan Richey Brunskill, a pretrial detainee at the Santa Cruz County Jail, alleged that jail officials used excessive force during a hospital transport and denied him medical care after his return.

Brunskill filed the lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He later asked to add claims alleging retaliation and interference with legal mail. The court found that his request was timely and that the proposed claims did not appear frivolous.

Judge Sallie Kim dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Brunskill had 28 days to file a proper amended complaint using the required caption and case number. The court warned that the amended complaint would replace the original and that failing to file it properly would result in dismissal of the action.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brunskill v. Booth · No. 3:23-cv-04077
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Nov. 3, 2023

Background

Dylan Richey Brunskill, identified in the caption as a plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, was a pretrial detainee at the Santa Cruz County Jail. He said that jail officials transported him to Dominican Hospital on November 22, 2022, used excessive force against him, and denied him medical care after he returned to the jail. He brought the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors.

Brunskill later filed a request to formally amend his complaint by adding claims for retaliation and interference with legal mail.

Amendment request

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), which allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within specified time limits. The court found Brunskill’s request timely and stated that his proposed claims did not appear frivolous.

Ruling

Judge Sallie Kim dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 28 days of the order. The court required the amended pleading to be simple and concise, to use the caption and civil case number from the order, and to state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.

The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants omitted from the amended complaint would not be considered. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated time would result in dismissal of the action.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.