Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-00583 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Defendants removed this action from the San Joaquin County Superior Court to this 

district on March 17, 2017. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner, moved for an extension 

of time to file a motion to remand on May 15, 2017. ECF No. 7. He asked for an additional sixty 

days and stated that the basis for his motion would be that this case is barred by the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff claimed 

that an extension of time was necessary because he had been hospitalized in three separate 

facilities since March 4, 2017, and had not had access to either his legal materials or a law library. 

Id. at 1-2. The court granted plaintiff’s request for extension of time and his motion was due on 

July 17, 2017. ECF No. 8. To date, he has not filed his motion or sought additional time. 

 A motion to remand based on any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

must be made within thirty days of the filing of the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

There is authority holding that the Heck bar is not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Okoro v. Bohman, 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 9 Filed 07/31/17 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 

27 

28 

2

164 F.3d 1059, 1061 (7th Cir. 1999); Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 413 n.1 (10th Cir. 

2004). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks to file a motion to remand based on the Heck 

bar, he must do so in a timely way. Plaintiff will have a final opportunity to submit his 

motion. Within thirty days of this order’s entry plaintiff should either submit his motion to 

remand or explain why there is good cause for a further extension of time. Having already 

granted plaintiff a ninety-day extension, the court is disinclined to extend the deadline further 

absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Failure to submit his motion within the 

deadline will almost certainly preclude him from raising a similar removal motion in the future, 

as it will be deemed untimely. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 28, 2017. 

Case 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC Document 9 Filed 07/31/17 Page 2 of 2