Khan v. Payton
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Khan v. Payton, Judge Freeman granted Khan part of his extension request, stayed briefing, and denied Payton’s extension motion as moot.
Muhammad Khan received 56 days to file an amended complaint; M. Payton’s extension request was denied as moot, and briefing was stayed.
What happened
In Khan v. Payton, Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner representing himself, sued an officer at San Quentin State Prison under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously allowed three claims to proceed but dismissed Khan’s First Amendment retaliation claim while allowing him to amend it.
Khan later requested 90 to 120 additional days to file an amended complaint, explaining that he lacked access to the law library. The court granted him 56 additional days instead and ordered him to use the court’s form, include the allowed claims, and try to state sufficient facts for the retaliation claim.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman stayed briefing and denied the defendant’s extension request as moot. The court said it would set a new briefing schedule after Khan filed the amended complaint or the filing period expired.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Payton · No. 5:20-cv-03086
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against M. Payton, identified as an officer at San Quentin State Prison. In an earlier order, the court found three claims legally sufficient to proceed but dismissed Khan’s First Amendment retaliation claim while allowing him to amend it. The court gave Khan 28 days to file an amended complaint and warned that, if he did not respond, the case would proceed only on the claims already found sufficient. After the deadline passed, the court ordered service on the cognizable claims.
On November 4, 2020, Khan filed a letter stating that he lacked access to the law library and seeking more time to revise his retaliation claim. The defendant also sought an extension of time.
Rulings
The court found good cause and granted in part Khan’s motion for an extension. Although Khan sought 90 to 120 days, the court granted an extension of 56 days, or eight weeks. Within that period, Khan was ordered to file an amended complaint on the court’s form that attempted to state sufficient facts for a First Amendment retaliation claim and included all claims the court had found cognizable in the original complaint.
The court also directed Khan to use the case caption and number specified in the order, place the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, and answer all questions on the form. It reminded him that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint: claims omitted from it would no longer be claims, and defendants not named in it would no longer be defendants.
The court stayed briefing and denied the defendant’s motion for an extension of time as moot. It stated that a new briefing schedule would be set after Khan filed an amended complaint or the time for filing it expired. If Khan did not file the amended complaint on time, the case would proceed on the claims previously identified as cognizable, without further notice. The order terminated Docket Nos. 14 and 15.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.