Khan v. Payton

Background

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

Motions and ruling

Khan moved for either a stay or a third extension of 120 to 180 days to file a second amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied the motion for a stay. It required Khan, no later than 60 days after the order was filed, to submit a second amended complaint on the court’s form. 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 original and first amended complaints. Claims not included in it and defendants not named in it would no longer be part of the action. Alternatively, Khan could notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the identified claims: a First Amendment claim concerning denial of religious freedom, an Eighth Amendment claim concerning denial of food, a due-process claim, and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence by SQSP. He could also remove the equal-protection claim from the amended complaint.

Effect of the order

If Khan failed to respond as ordered within the provided time, the court stated that the equal-protection claim would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The action would proceed on the claims the court had identified as legally sufficient. The order terminated Docket No. 30. This order addressed amendment deadlines and case management; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.