Weaver v. Hennessey et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

GREENIE ANTHONY WEAVER
a/k/a JEROME WEAVER,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12
13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. C 12-896 SI (pr)

v.
MICHAEL HENNESSEY; et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Greenie Anthony Weaver a/k/a Jerome Weaver, an inmate at the San Francisco County
Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the
complaint, found that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and gave
Weaver leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies in the pleading. He then filed an
amended complaint. Like the original complaint, the amended complaint concerns an alleged
over-detention at the San Francisco County Jail. However, the amended complaint suffers from
the same problem that existed in the original complaint, i.e., the court cannot understand the
claim he is trying to assert. As the court explained in the order of dismissal with leave to amend:
[T]he nature of Weaver's over-detention claim cannot be understood from his allegations.
The court cannot determine whether Weaver is trying to claim that the court imposed an
illegal sentence that the jailers implemented, or that the jailers failed to implement the
sentence ordered by the court. He needs to file an amended complaint, clarifying the
nature of his claim. If he contends he was subjected to an over-detention (i.e., had to stay
in custody longer than allowed by law), he should state when he was released, and when
he should have been released. He also needs to link defendants to this claim, by alleging
what each proposed defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his
constitutional rights.

1

Docket # 9, p. 2. Because the amended complaint is as confusing as the original complaint, the

2

court is unable to determine whether it states a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

3

court will grant further leave to amend so that Weaver may try once again to allege his claims

4

in an understandable manner.

5

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The

6

second amended complaint must be filed no later than March 29, 2013, and must include the

7

caption and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED

8

COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file the second amended complaint by the deadline

9

will result in the dismissal of the action.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2