Khan v. Payton
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Khan v. Payton, Judge Freeman granted Khan an extension to file a second amended complaint and set instructions for doing so.
Muhammad Khan, the self-represented plaintiff, and the progression of his claims against M. Payton.
What happened
In Khan v. Payton, Muhammad Khan, a self-represented state prisoner, said he had not received the court’s earlier screening order. That order gave him permission to amend an equal-protection claim against M. Payton.
The court granted Khan’s request for more time. It ordered him to file a second amended complaint within 42 days, using the court’s form and correcting the problems identified in the earlier order. Alternatively, he could choose to proceed only on the claims the court had found sufficient, including claims involving religious freedom, food, due process, emotional distress, and negligence.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal of the equal-protection claim for failure to state a claim. The order also directed the Clerk to send Khan copies of several docket documents and terminated Docket No. 24.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Payton · No. 5:20-cv-03086
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 8, 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. The court had previously screened Khan’s first amended complaint and allowed him to amend an equal-protection claim. The court also identified claims that could proceed, including claims concerning religious freedom, denial of food, due process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence by SQSP.
Khan told the court that he had not received several docket documents, including the earlier screening order. He requested copies of those documents and a new deadline for responding.
Ruling
The court granted Khan’s motion for an extension of time. It ordered him to file a second amended complaint within 42 days after the order was filed, using the court’s form and correcting the deficiencies identified in the equal-protection claim against Payton. The complaint had to use the case caption and number stated in the order and include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.
The court explained that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints. Claims omitted from it would no longer be claims, and defendants not named in it would no longer be defendants. As an alternative, Khan could notify the court that he wanted to proceed only on the previously identified cognizable claims and remove the equal-protection claim from the amended complaint.
The court stated that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the equal-protection claim for failure to state a claim, while the action would proceed on the identified cognizable claims. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also directed the Clerk to send Khan copies of the specified docket documents. The order terminated Docket No. 24.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.