Khan v. Payton
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Khan v. Payton, Judge Freeman vacated the order dismissing non-cognizable claims and its briefing schedule, granted Khan an extension, and set a deadline.
Muhammad Khan, M. Payton, and the pending claims in Khan’s civil-rights action were affected. Khan received 42 days to file a second amended complaint, while the prior dismissal order and briefing schedule were vacated.
What happened
Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner representing himself, sued M. Payton, an officer at San Quentin State Prison, under the federal civil-rights law covering actions under state authority. The court had allowed Khan to amend an equal-protection claim or proceed only on claims it had found legally sufficient.
Khan did not file a second amended complaint after receiving three extensions. The court then dismissed the claims it had found legally insufficient and set a briefing schedule. Khan later asked for another extension, stating that he had not received his legal property and that he had mailed his request on May 2, the date the amended complaint was due.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman vacated the earlier dismissal order and briefing schedule and granted Khan’s extension request. She gave him 42 days to file a second amended complaint, said no further extensions would be granted, and warned that failing to file would result in dismissal of the equal-protection claim for failure to state a claim; the action would otherwise proceed on the previously identified claims.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Payton · No. 5:20-cv-03086
- Beth Freeman
- May 18, 2022
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 screened Khan’s first amended complaint and granted him permission to amend an equal-protection claim. Alternatively, the court told him he could proceed only on claims the screening order found legally sufficient.
Khan did not file a second amended complaint after receiving three extensions of time. On May 11, 2022, the court dismissed the claims it had found legally insufficient and set a briefing schedule for the claims it had found sufficient. Khan then submitted another motion for an extension. He stated that he had not received his legal property from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and that his mailing had been sent on May 2, 2022.
Ruling
The court found good cause for another extension because Khan’s motion appeared to have been filed on the date his second amended complaint was due. Judge Beth Labson Freeman therefore vacated the prior order dismissing the non-cognizable claims and vacated the briefing schedule in that order. She granted Khan’s motion for an extension of time.
The court ordered Khan to file a second amended complaint on the court’s form within 42 days after the order was filed. The new complaint had to correct the deficiencies identified in the equal-protection claim against Payton, include the required case caption and case number, and answer all questions on the form. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted.
The court also explained that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints. Claims omitted from it would no longer be claims, and defendants omitted from it would no longer be defendants. If Khan failed to file as ordered, the equal-protection claim would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The action would proceed on the claims previously identified as legally sufficient: 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 SQSP.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.