Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01495/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01495-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAKEITH L. McCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01495 BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 

AND EX PARTE REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

(ECF No. 35)

ORDER TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR ORDER REVOKING 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS OR DISMISSING CASE

(ECF No. 26)

FEBRUARY 18, 2016 RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING DEADLINE

Plaintiff LaKeith L. McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Garikaparthi, Steiber, Keeler and Chavez 

for violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights arising from the alleged deprivation of 

adequate food.

Case 1:13-cv-01495-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 01/20/16 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 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status or dismissing the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 26.) On 

January 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 34.) Among other

grounds for opposing Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff argued that he did not, on three or more prior 

occasions previous to filing the complaint in this case, incur “three-strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). (ECF No. 34, pp. 10-13.) He noted that several of the matters that Defendants relied on 

in support of their motion were dismissed after he filed the complaint in this matter. 

On January 13, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their November 19, 2016 

motion, combined with a request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.) In their supporting documentation, Defendants 

agreed that Plaintiff’s argument that some of his “strikes” were incurred after the complaint in 

this case was filed is well-taken, and as a result they withdraw their motion. (ECF No. 35-2, p. 2.) 

Defendants also seek an extension to and including February 18, 2016 to file a responsive 

pleading to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. In support, they submitted a declaration of counsel 

discussing that counsel’s calendar and caseload prevent him from filing a responsive pleading 

before the requested deadline. (Id.) Defendants also note that the Court previously granted their 

request for a reasonable period of time to respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint after the 

Court ruled on the motion they now seek to withdraw. (ECF No. 30.)

Defendants have shown good cause for the requested extension based on counsel’s schedule 

and the good-faith withdrawal of their motion which had delayed the need for a responsive 

pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the grant of 

this extension as Defendants’ potentially dispositive motion is now withdrawn and the case is 

moving forward within a reasonable period of time.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01495-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 01/20/16 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 that:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Order Revoking Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status or

Dismissing Case (ECF No. 26) shall be deemed WITHDRAWN; and,

2. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 

35) is GRANTED. On or before February 18, 2016, Defendants shall file and serve a response to 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01495-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 3