Khan v. Perez Pantoja

Background

Muhammad Khan, identified as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged unconstitutional acts at the Correctional Training Facility, where he was formerly housed. On December 2, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint but allowed him to file an amended complaint. The court gave him 28 days to respond and told him to submit a non-prisoner application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he was no longer incarcerated.

Khan moved for an extension until February 1, 2025. He cited delays in receiving electronic court notifications and difficulty writing or typing. He also submitted a letter from a care provider and requested help from an “ADA coordinator” while asking that his medical information remain confidential. The court stated that it has no “ADA coordinator.”

Rulings

The court granted Khan’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and the non-prisoner application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It ordered him to use the court’s complaint form, include the caption and case number, place the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, and answer all questions on the form.

The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint. Claims and defendants omitted from the amended complaint will no longer be part of the action. The court warned that failure to file the amended complaint or another required response by February 1, 2025, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim without further notice. It also stated that the action could proceed only if Khan filed the required non-prisoner fee application.

The court directed the clerk to file Khan’s motion under seal because it contained private medical information. The order terminated Docket No. 7. Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not decide the merits of Khan’s civil-rights claims in this order.