Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA MAY BOYER, DONNA JEAN

ROWE-WILLIS, TROY “J” WILLIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANGELA Y. ARMSTRONG, in her

private capacity, CHRIS LEWIS, in

his private capacity, R. STEVEN

LAPHAM, in his private capacity,

et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-0752 DFL PAN PS

ORDER 

—NFN—

Defendants, pursuant to ex parte application, seek an

extension of time until May 31, 2005, to respond to plaintiffs’

amended complaint. On April 18, 2005, four days after service of

the amended complaint, defendants filed a petition for removal of

this case from the San Joaquin Superior Court. Defendants are

employees of the United States who assert their alleged

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 8 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c) provides in pertinent part: “In a removed

action in which the defendant has not answered, the defendant shall answer or

present the other defenses or objections available under these rules within 20

days after the receipt through service or otherwise of a copy of the initial

pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action or

proceeding is based, or within 20 days after the service of summons upon such

initial pleading, then filed, or within 5 days after the filing of the

petition for removal, whichever period is longest.”

2

misconduct occurred during the performance of their duties. 

Assistant United States Attorney Deborah Luther, who is out-of

state until May 3, has been assigned their defense. 

Defendants note that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c) they are

required to file a response to the amended complaint within five

days of removal, or by April 23.1 However, enlargement of time

is permitted for cause shown upon a request made before

expiration of the deadline, as defendants have shown and made

here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

Accordingly, defendants’ request for an extension of time

until May 31, 2005, to prepare and file defendants’ response to

plaintiffs’ amended complaint is hereby granted.

So ordered.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 8 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2