Maggay v. Micke
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04994
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Maggay v. Micke, Judge Freeman granted Roderick Maggay more time to file a second amended complaint because COVID-19 restricted the law library.
Roderick Maggay, whose deadline to file a second amended complaint was extended to September 26, 2022; the order also specified which claims and defendants would remain in the case based on what the new complaint included.
What happened
Roderick Maggay, a federal prisoner representing himself, sued staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. The court had allowed him to file a second amended complaint and required it within 28 days.
Maggay requested more time because COVID-19 restrictions limited access to the law library. The court granted the request and set September 26, 2022, as the deadline for filing the second amended complaint.
The order addressed only the filing deadline and instructions for amending the complaint. Judge Freeman said the new complaint would replace the earlier one and that claims or defendants left out would no longer be part of the case.
The detailed version
- Maggay v. Micke · No. 5:21-cv-04994
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 11, 2022
Background
Roderick Maggay, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. On July 14, 2022, the court granted him permission to file a second amended complaint and paused briefing. The court directed him to file that complaint within 28 days.
Motion and ruling
Maggay moved for an extension of time because access to the law library was restricted due to COVID-19. Finding good cause, the court granted the motion. It required Maggay to file the second amended complaint using the court’s form by September 26, 2022.
Filing instructions and effect
The court required the second amended complaint to include the caption, civil case number, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Maggay was required to answer all questions on the form. The court explained that the second amended complaint would replace 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 also stated that if Maggay failed to file the complaint by the deadline, the action would proceed based on the claims identified as legally sufficient in the court’s earlier screening order.
This order ruled on the timing and requirements for filing an amended complaint; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.