Maggay v. Micke

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 11, 2022·No. 5:21-cv-04994·Unknown

Opinion

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

11 RODERICK MAGGAY, Case No. 21-cv-04994 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 13 v . SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 OFFICER MICKE, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 26) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. Dkt. No. 1. On July 14, 2022, the Court 20 issued an order granting leave to file a second amended complaint and staying briefing. 21 Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint within twenty- 22 eight days from the date the order was filed. Id. 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file a second amended 24 complaint because the law library is restricted due to Covid-19. Dkt. No. 26. Good cause 25 appearing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint 26 using the court’s form complaint no later than September 26, 2022. 27 The second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 1 || AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 2 || the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended 3 || complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original 4 || complaint. Claims not included in the second amended complaint are no longer claims and 5 || defendants not named in a second amended complaint are no longer defendants. See 6 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 7 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second amended 8 || complaint in the time provided will result in this action proceeding based on the 9 || cognizable claims in the amended complaint, as discussed in the Court’s initial 10 || screening order, Dkt. No. 14. 11 IT ISSO ORDERED. = 12 || Dated: _ August 11, 2022 fob Lays eae) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge 15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Order Granting Mot. for EOT to File Second Am. Compl. PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\04994Maggay-eot-sac

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Maggay v. Micke, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Maggay v. Micke (Maggay v. Micke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)