Maggay v. Micke

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 IN PART MOTION FOR SECOND 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 OFFICER MICKE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket No. 29) 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. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued an order granting an extension of time 22 to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff was directed to file a second 23 amended complaint no later than September 26, 2022. Id. 24 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a second extension of time to file a second amended 25 complaint because the law library is restricted due to Covid-19 and staffing shortages. 26 Dkt. No. 29. Good cause appearing, the Plaintiff’s 90-day extension of time motion is 27 GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint using the Court’s 1 The second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 2 || used in this order, i.e., Case No. 21-cv-04994 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND 3 || AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 4 || the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended 5 || complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not make 6 || references to either in the second amended complaint. Claims not included in the second 7 || amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in a second amended 8 || complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th g || Cir.1992). 10 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second amended 11 complaint in the time provided will result in this action proceeding based on the a 12 || cognizable claims in the amended complaint, as discussed in the Court’s initial 13 screening order, Dkt. No. 14. IT IS SO ORDERED. th) 15 || Dated: October 4, 2022 WMV. BETH LABSON FREEMAN = 16 United States District Judge

oid

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Order Granting Mot. for second EOT to File Second Am. Compl. 27 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\04994Maggay-2"" eot-sac