Khan v. Hunt

Opinion

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT v. AND NON-PRISONER IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; DENYING OTHER PENDING HUNT, MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE Defendant. MOTION UNDER SEAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 9)

Plaintiff, a state parolee, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Santa Clara County Jail, where he was formerly housed. Dkt. No. 1. On December 2, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff was directed to file a response within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was also on the wrong form since he is no longer incarcerated; he was provided with a non- prisoner IFP application to be filed in the same time provided. Id. at 6. On January 8, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s first motion for an extension of time, granting him until January 21, 2025, to respond. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. due to delays in notifications via ECF/PACER and difficulty writing/typing. Dkt. No. 7. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a response to the Court’s initial review order no later than February 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. Plaintiff provides a letter from his care provider regarding his difficulty writing/typing. Dkt. No. 9 at 2. He requests an accommodation under the “ADA and Rehab act” for double the time to file the requested pleadings, and for the court to connect him with the “ADA coordinator of this court,” a request which he asserts is “protected under HIPAA; requesting confidentially of medical information provided.” Id. at 1. There is no “ADA coordinator” for the Court. Rather, in order to protect Plaintiff’s medical privacy, the Court shall order the Clerk to file Plaintiff’s medical document under seal. Furthermore, the Court will keep in mind Plaintiff’s request for additional time in setting future deadlines. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies described in the court’s Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. Dkt. No. 6. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 24-cv-03903 BLF (PR), and the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original. Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named therein are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice to proceed on the cognizable excessive force claim against Defendant Hunt and strike all other claims from the complaint. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 1 on the excessive force claim against Defendant Hunt and all other claims being 2 dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to state a claim for relief without 3 further notice to Plaintiff. However, this action will only proceed if Plaintiff files the 4 non-prisoner IFP application as stated in the last court order. Dkt. No. 6 at 6. 5 Because Plaintiff must file a non-prisoner IFP application, his previous IFP motion 6 is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. No. 2. 7 The Clerk shall file Plaintiff's motion under SEAL as it contains private medical g || information. Dkt. No. 9. 9 This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 7. 11 || Dated: — January 17,2025 Ais / Wh, (Zo) z | BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Granting Mot. for 2" EOT to file AC & IFP PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\03903Khan_eot2-ac&IFP 26 27