Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-05906
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services, Judge Freeman granted Do’s request for more time to amend his complaint.
Minh Cong Do received additional time to file an amended complaint; the defendants remain subject to the case only to the extent they are included in any amended complaint.
What happened
Minh Cong Do filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against California Corrections Health Care Services and others. The court had dismissed his complaint but allowed him to amend it.
Do requested more time because mail from the court had been delayed and returned as undeliverable. The clerk resent the earlier order, and the court granted his request.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Do to respond within 28 days after this order was filed. The court warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services · No. 5:23-cv-05906
- Beth Freeman
- May 21, 2024
Background
Minh Cong Do filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims, against “CDCR Officers,” “CDCR Nurses,” “CDCR Doctors,” and California Corrections Health Care Services. On April 2, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint but gave him permission to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The deadline was April 30, 2024.
Request for More Time
Mail sent to Do was returned as undeliverable on April 16, 2024. The clerk resent a copy of the court’s earlier order on April 17. Do requested an extension because of the delay in receiving the court’s mail.
Ruling
The court granted Do’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. It ordered him to respond to the court’s initial review order no later than 28 days from the date of this order.
The court instructed Do to use the caption and civil case number shown in the order and to put “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If he used the court’s form, he had to answer all questions. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, so claims and defendants left out of the amended complaint would no longer be part of the case.
The court warned that failing to respond within the required time would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the extension ruling terminated Docket No. 14.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.