Khan v. Payton

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 2, 2022
• Docket: 5:20-cv-03086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

11 MUHAMMAD KHAN, Case No. 20-03086 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR THIRD EXTENSION 13 v. OF TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 14 M. PAYTON, DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

15 Defendant. 16 (Docket No. 30)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. Dkt. No. 1. On June 14, 2021, the 20 Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted leave to amend an equal 21 protection claim. Dkt. No. 22. In the alternative, Plaintiff was advised that he may file 22 notice to proceed solely on the cognizable claims identified in the order. Id. at 8. 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a stay or a third extension of time of 120-180 days to 24 file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 30. For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s motion 25 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is DENIED. 26 No later than sixty (60) days for the time this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a 27 second amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies 1 || second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 2 || order, i.e., Case No. C 20-03086 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED 3. || COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in 4 order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended complaint 5 || supersedes the original and the first amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not make 6 || references to either the original or first amended complaint. Claims not included in the 7 || second amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended 8 || complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th g || Cir.1992). 10 In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice that he wishes to proceed solely on 11 || the cognizable claims discussed in the court order, i.e., First Amendment claim for the 2 denial of religious freedom, Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of food, violation of E 13 || due process, and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and S 14 || negligence by SQSP, and strike the equal protection claim from the amended complaint. 3 15 || Dkt. No. 22 at 4-5. 16 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second amended 5 17. || complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of the equal protection claim for 5 18 failure to state a claim. This action will proceed on the cognizable claims discussed above. 19 The Clerk shall include a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 20 18, with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 71 This order terminates Docket No. 30. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: _— March 1, 2022 he bur harman) 54 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 26 27 || PRO-SEIBLFICR 20003086Knan_3d.corsac