Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01421/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01421-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCTAGGART, et al.,

Defendants.

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

(ECF No. 3)

Motion for Remand Due: January 6, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pleading. (Id.)

///

Case 1:22-cv-01421-NODJ-BAM Document 4 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

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

January 6, 2023, is appropriate under the circumstances. 

///

1 This deadline includes an additional three days for service by mail, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

6(d).

Case 1:22-cv-01421-NODJ-BAM Document 4 Filed 11/18/22 Page 2 of 3
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

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;

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

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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01421-NODJ-BAM Document 4 Filed 11/18/22 Page 3 of 3