Khan v. Hunt
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-03903
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Khan v. Hunt, Judge Freeman granted Muhammad Khan more time to amend his civil-rights complaint and submit a non-prisoner fee-waiver application, without deciding the claims.
Muhammad Khan, who received additional time to amend his complaint and submit a non-prisoner application to proceed without paying filing fees; Hunt, who remained the defendant on the identified excessive-force claim; and the other claims, which the court stated would be dismissed with prejudice if Khan did not respond as ordered.
What happened
Khan v. Hunt concerns Muhammad Khan’s civil-rights lawsuit against Hunt. Khan, identified as a state parolee, sued officers at Santa Clara County Jail, where he had previously been housed. The court had dismissed his complaint while allowing him to amend it.
Khan asked for more time to file an amended complaint and submit a new application to proceed without paying filing fees. He said he had not received notifications through the court’s electronic systems. The court found good cause for the request.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion. She directed Khan to file an amended complaint using the court’s form and a non-prisoner fee application. Alternatively, he could proceed only on the excessive-force claim against Hunt. If he failed to respond as ordered, the case would proceed solely on that claim and the other claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Hunt · No. 5:24-cv-03903
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Muhammad Khan, identified in the order as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Santa Clara County Jail, where he was formerly housed. The court’s December 2, 2024 order dismissed his complaint but gave him permission to amend it. The court required a response within 28 days and also determined that Khan had submitted the wrong application to proceed without paying filing fees because he was no longer incarcerated. The court provided a non-prisoner application instead.
Motion and Court’s Ruling
Khan moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and submit the new fee application, citing a lack of notifications through the court’s electronic filing and docket-access systems. The court found good cause and granted the motion.
The court directed Khan to file an amended complaint on the court’s form addressing the deficiencies identified in the earlier dismissal order. The amended complaint must use the case caption and number stated in the order and include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint: claims left out of it are no longer claims, and defendants not named in it are no longer defendants.
The court also allowed Khan, as an alternative, to file a notice stating that he would proceed only on the excessive-force claim against Hunt and would strike all other claims. The court stated that failing to file either an amended complaint or that notice on time would cause the case to proceed solely on the excessive-force claim and the other claims to be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court further stated that the case would proceed only if Khan filed the required non-prisoner fee application. The order terminated Docket No. 7.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.