Maggay v. Micke
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04994
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Maggay v. Micke, Judge Freeman partly granted Maggay’s request for more time to file a second amended complaint.
Roderick Maggay, who was representing himself, and the defendants named in his civil-rights action. The order also specified what claims and defendants would remain in the case depending on what Maggay included in his second amended complaint.
What happened
Maggay v. Micke concerns Roderick Maggay’s civil-rights lawsuit against staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. Maggay, a federal prisoner representing himself, had been allowed to file a second amended complaint and had already received one extension.
Maggay requested another 90-day extension because access to the law library was restricted by COVID-19 conditions and staffing shortages. The court also reminded him that the new complaint would replace his earlier complaints and must include all claims and defendants he wanted to keep.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion in part. The order required Maggay to file the second amended complaint using the specified case caption and case number, answer all questions on the court form, and comply with the filing deadline; otherwise, the case would proceed based on the claims identified in the earlier screening order.
The detailed version
- Maggay v. Micke · No. 5:21-cv-04994
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
Roderick Maggay, a federal prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Micke and other staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. The court had previously allowed Maggay to file a second amended complaint, stayed briefing, and granted one extension. The then-current deadline was September 26, 2022.
Maggay moved for a second extension of time, citing restricted law-library access caused by COVID-19 and staffing shortages. The order states that Maggay requested a 90-day extension.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted in part Maggay’s motion for a second extension of time to file the second amended complaint. The order directed him to use the caption and civil case number stated in the order and to place the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. He also had to answer all questions on the court form for the action to proceed.
The court explained that the second amended complaint would replace the original and amended complaints. Claims omitted from the second amended complaint would no longer be claims, and defendants omitted from it would no longer be defendants. If Maggay did not file a second amended complaint as required by the order and within the time provided, the action would proceed based on the cognizable claims discussed in the initial screening order. The opinion does not clearly state the specific portion of the requested 90-day extension that was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.