(PC) Lamon v. McTaggart et al

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's #3 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Removal of Case to Federal Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/18/2022. (Case Management Deadline: 1/6/2023)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:22-cv-01421-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO REMOVAL OF CASE TO
FEDERAL COURT

v.
MCTAGGART, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 3)

Defendants.

Motion for Remand Due: January 6, 2023

16
Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On November 3, 2022, Defendants California Department of Corrections and

20

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), K. McTaggart, D. Laughlin, J. Filippello, N. Lamb, D. Tillery, J.

21

Feltner, J. Walters, Z. Warren, J. Marquina, J. Pierce, D. Crozler, J. Sunderland, C. Jimenez, M.

22

Besson, P. J. Covello, D. Webb, B. Holmes, S. Medina, K. Pinelli, and I. Salinovich (collectively,

23

“Defendants”) removed this action from Kings County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants

24

further requested that the Court screen the complaint (which was the operative First Amended

25

Complaint in the Kings County Superior Court action) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and that

26

Defendants be allowed forty-five days from the screening of the complaint to file a responsive

27

pleading. (Id.)

28

///
1

1

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an

2

opposition to the removal of the case to federal court. (ECF No. 3.) The Court construes the

3

request as a motion for an extension of time to file a motion to remand. Although Defendants

4

have not had an opportunity to file a response, the Court finds a response unnecessary. The

5

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

6

In his motion, Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension of time, up to and including

7

December 15, 2022, to file an opposition to the removal of this case to the federal courts. (ECF

8

No. 3.) Plaintiff states that he is a participant in the CDCR Mental Health Services Delivery

9

System, being treated at the “Enhanced Outpatient Delivery System,” which is reserved for

10

inmates suffering at the most severe level of mental illness normally housed in CDCR. As a

11

participant in the Enhanced Outpatient Program, Plaintiff is required to attend therapeutic groups

12

each weekday, which limits how often he can attend the law library. Plaintiff states he is often

13

denied yard access, and therefore access to the law library, because his therapeutic groups conflict

14

with the rotating yard schedule. Plaintiff needs time to attend the law library and access the legal

15

computer to research the applicable laws for removal of this action to federal court. (Id.)

16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, following removal of a case from a state court, a motion to

17

remand the case on the basis of any defect, other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction, must be

18

made within thirty days after the filing of the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As

19

Defendants filed the notice of removal on November 3, 2022, any motion for remand is currently

20

due on or before December 6, 2022.1
Based on Plaintiff’s lack of access to the law library at his institution, the Court finds good

21
22

cause to grant the requested thirty-day extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further

23

finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here, as the Court finds

24

that in order to avoid potential conflicts with the holidays, an extension of this deadline until

25

January 6, 2023, is appropriate under the circumstances.

26

///

27
1

28

This deadline includes an additional three days for service by mail, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(d).

2

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for remand, (ECF No. 3), is
GRANTED;

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for remand, if any, is due on or before January 6, 2023;

5

3. Defendants’ response to the motion for remand is due within twenty-one (21) days from

6
7
8
9
10

the date the motion for remand is docketed;
4. Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ response to the motion for remand, if any, is due within
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Defendants’ response; and
5. If Plaintiff does not file a motion for remand in compliance with the deadline set by this
order, the Court will proceed with screening of the complaint in due course.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 18, 2022

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3