Lay v. McCain et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD LAY 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 19-9803
S. W. MCCAIN, ET AL. 	SECTION “R”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for extension of time to file notice of
appeal. 1 For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In 2019, Richard Lay filed an application for the writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 Lay’s habeas petition, as amended, challenged his
2011 state conviction by unanimous jury verdict for battery on a correctional
facility employee and his related multiple offender adjudication. 3 Following
consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr., 4 the supplemental R&R of Magistrate Judge
1 	R. Doc. 94.
2 	R. Doc. 1.
3 	R. Doc. 24.
4 	R. Doc. 33.
Case 2:19-cv-09803-SSV-DPC Document 95 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Donna Phillips Currault, 5 Lay’s objections to the R&Rs, 6 Lay’s petition, the
record, and the applicable law, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judges’
R&Rs as its opinion, thereby dismissing Lay’s petition with prejudice. 7
Lay has since filed numerous motions in this Court. In July 2023, Lay
filed motions to alter or amend judgment and to vacate judgment. 8 	The
Court denied the motions and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”) as to Lay’s motions.9 Lay appealed the Court’s Order and Reasons,
and on January 10, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal for want of prosecution. 10 Between February 20, 2024 and April 24,
2024, Lay filed five motions seeking various relief from the Court. 11 On May
21, 2024, The Court denied all of Lay’s motions, finding that four of the
motions were second or successive habeas petitions, and declined to issue a
5 	R. Doc. 50.
6 	R. Docs. 36, 37, 42, 51 & 54.
7 	R. Doc. 57.
8 	R. Docs. 64 & 65. The Court construed Lay’s motion, which was styled
as a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a),
as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). R. Doc. 67.
9 	R. Doc. 67.
10 	R. Doc. 69. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit issued a notice informing Lay
that his appeal could not proceed until he established whether he had
satisfied a previous sanction imposed against him in a separate case,
Lay v. Tanner, No. 13-30708. 	Lay failed to comply with the Fifth
Circuit’s notice.
11 	R. Docs. 70, 70-1, 71, 73, & 74.
Case 2:19-cv-09803-SSV-DPC Document 95 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 5

3
COA as to Lay’s motions. 12 Lay moved for a COA from the Fifth Circuit, which
was denied on January 2, 2025.13 On July 17, 2024, Lay again filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus and certificate of appealability, 14 which the Court
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas application
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). 15 On February 6, 2025, Lay filed a motion to
vacate the Court’s orders denying habeas corpus relief, 16 which the Court
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on March 7, 2025.17
Between April 2, 2025 and May 12, 2025, Lay filed various motions, all
of which the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as second or successive
habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). 18 	The Court also notified
Lay that if he continued filing frivolous motions, the Court would consider
implementing a pre-filing injunction. 19 This Court’s order on those motions
was entered on November 14, 2025.
Lay now seeks additional time to appeal this Court’s November 14,
2025 order. 20 The Court addresses his motion below.
12 	R. Doc. 75. Lay’s motion to appoint counsel was also denied.
13 	R. Doc. 81.
14 	R. Doc. 78.
15 	R. Doc. 79.
16 	R. Doc. 83.
17 	R. Doc. 84.
18 	R. Doc. 93.
19 	Id.
20 	R. Doc. 94.
Case 2:19-cv-09803-SSV-DPC Document 95 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 5

4
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) governs motions for
extension of time to file notices of appeal. 	Under this rule, “[t]he district
court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if” the appealing party
moves for the extension “no later than 30 days after the time prescribed . . .
expires” and “shows excusable neglect or good cause.” 	Fed. R. App.
4(a)(5)(A).
Here, Lay has timely filed his motion for extension of time. The date
of entry of the order triggers the 30-day period for timely filing a notice of
appeal. 	Lay filed the instant motion before the deadline to file an appeal.
The Court must now determine if Lay presents excusable neglect or good
cause. Lay states that he requires access to the law library. 21 He additionally
states that access to the library is limited. 22 	The Court finds there is good
cause to provide Lay with an extension. As Lay has met both criteria for an
extension under Rule 4(a)(5)(A), the Court finds that an extension is
appropriate.
21 	See R. Doc. 94.
22 	See id.
Case 2:19-cv-09803-SSV-DPC Document 95 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 5

5
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for extension
of time. 	Lay shall have 30 additional days to file a notice of appeal of this
Court’s November 14, 2025 order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10th
Case 2:19-cv-09803-SSV-DPC Document 95 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 5