Opinion
21-cv-04994 BLF (PR)
10-04-2022
RODERICK MAGGAY, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MICKE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(DOCKET NO. 29)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Santa Rita County Jail. Dkt. No. 1. On July 14, 2022, the Court issued an order granting leave to file a second amended complaint and staying briefing. Dkt. No. 25. On August 11, 2022, the Court issued an order granting an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint no later than September 26, 2022. Id.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for a second extension of time to file a second amended complaint because the law library is restricted due to Covid-19 and staffing shortages. Dkt. No. 29. Good cause appearing, the Plaintiff's 90-day extension of time motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint using the Court's form complaint no later than forty-two (42) days from the date this order is filed.
The second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. 21-cv-04994 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not make references to either in the second amended complaint. Claims not included in the second amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in a second amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992).
Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second amended complaint in the time provided will result in this action proceeding based on the cognizable claims in the amended complaint, as discussed in the Court's initial screening order, Dkt. No. 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.