Khan v. Hunt
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-03903
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Khan v. Hunt, Judge Freeman granted more time, denied an earlier fee-waiver application without prejudice, and ordered medical records sealed.
Muhammad Khan must file the required amended complaint or notice and a non-prisoner fee-waiver application by the stated deadlines; Hunt and the other named defendants are affected by which claims and defendants Khan includes in any amended complaint.
What happened
Khan v. Hunt concerns Muhammad Khan’s civil-rights lawsuit against Hunt, involving officers at Santa Clara County Jail. The court had previously dismissed Khan’s complaint but allowed him to amend it, and Khan requested more time and a new application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court granted Khan’s second extension and required him to respond by February 1, 2025. He must file an amended complaint on the court’s form or notify the court that he will proceed only on the excessive-force claim against Hunt. The court denied his earlier fee-waiver motion without prejudice because he must submit the non-prisoner form, and it ordered his medical document filed under seal.
Judge Beth Freeman also explained that the court has no “ADA coordinator” and said it would consider Khan’s request for additional time when setting future deadlines. The order did not decide the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Hunt · No. 5:24-cv-03903
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
Muhammad Khan, identified as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Santa Clara County Jail, where he had previously been housed. On December 2, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend and directed him to respond within 28 days. The court also told him to submit a non-prisoner application to proceed without paying the filing fee because his prior application used the prisoner form.
The court had already granted Khan’s first request for more time, giving him until January 21, 2025. Khan then requested another extension, referring to delays in electronic notifications and difficulty writing and typing. He also submitted a letter from a care provider and requested an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, including double the time to file pleadings and contact with the court’s “ADA coordinator.”
Rulings
The court granted Khan’s second extension. It ordered him to respond to the initial review order no later than February 1, 2025. Khan must use the court’s form, include the required case caption and the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,” and answer all questions on the form. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from it will no longer be part of the action.
Alternatively, Khan may file notice that he will proceed only on the cognizable excessive-force claim against Hunt and will remove the other claims. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered will result in the excessive-force claim against Hunt and all other claims being dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The action will proceed only if Khan files the required non-prisoner fee-waiver application.
The court denied Khan’s previous fee-waiver motion without prejudice. It directed the Clerk to file Khan’s motion under seal because it contains private medical information. The court also stated that it would consider Khan’s request for additional time when setting future deadlines, but explained that there is no “ADA coordinator” for the court. The order terminated Docket Nos. 2 and 7. The order did not decide whether Khan’s claims ultimately have merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.