Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against M. Payton, an officer at San Quentin State Prison. The court had screened Khan’s first amended complaint and allowed him to amend an equal-protection claim. The court also told Khan that, alternatively, he could proceed only on claims it had found legally sufficient.

Motion and court’s ruling

Khan moved for a second 90-day extension of time to file a second amended complaint. Payton filed a statement of non-opposition. The court found good cause and granted the motion.

The court ordered Khan to file the second amended complaint by February 17, 2022. The filing 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 new complaint would replace the original and first amended complaints, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer remain in the case.

As an alternative, Khan could notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the previously identified claims: a First Amendment religious-freedom claim, an Eighth Amendment food-denial claim, a due-process claim, and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence by San Quentin State Prison. Under that option, he would strike the equal-protection claim from the amended complaint.

Disposition and classification

The motion for a second extension of time was granted. The order stated that failure to respond as required would result in dismissal of the equal-protection claim for failure to state a claim, while the action would proceed on the other identified claims. This order addressed filing deadlines and pleading instructions rather than the merits of the claims, so it is classified as a procedural order.