Khan v. Hunt

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MUHAMMAD KHAN, Case No. 24-cv-03903 BLF (PR)

12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND v. NON-PRISONER IN FORMA 14 PAUPERIS APPLICATION 15 HUNT,

16 Defendant. (Docket No. 7)

18 Plaintiff, a state parolee, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against officers at Santa Clara County Jail, where he was formerly housed. Dkt. No. 20 1. On December 2, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. 21 No. 6. Plaintiff was directed to file a response within twenty-eight days from the date the 22 order was filed. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was 23 also on the wrong form since he is no longer incarcerated; he was provided with a non- 24 prisoner IFP application to be filed in the same time provided. Id. at 6. 25 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint 26 and submit a new IFP due to the lack of notifications via ECF/PACER. Dkt. No. 7. Good 27 cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a response to the Court’s 1 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to correct 2 || the deficiencies described in the court’s Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. Dkt. 3 || No. 6. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 4 || order, i.e., Case No. C 24-cv-03903 BLF (PR), and the words “FIRST AMENDED 5 || COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in 6 || order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint 7 || supersedes the original complaint, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original. 8 || Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not g || named therein are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 10 Cir.1992). 11 In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice to proceed on the cognizable excessive 2 force claim against Defendant Hunt and strike all other claims from the complaint. Dkt. E 13. || No. 6 at2. S 14 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 3 15 || complaint or notice in the time provided will result in this matter proceeding solely 16 || on the excessive force claim against Defendant Hunt and all other claims being 5 17 || dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to state a claim for relief without 5 18 || further notice to Plaintiff. However, this action will only proceed if Plaintiff files the 19 || non-prisoner IFP application as stated in the last court order. Dkt. No. 6 at 6. 20 This order terminates Docket No. 7. 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: _ January 8,2025 Aaiinfacncan _ 33 BETH LABSON F REEMAN United States District Judge 24 |) PRO-SEIBLFICR 2403903KhancotacQlfP 26 27