Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00178/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00178-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Fernando Arango, 

Defendant.

No. CV-09-00178-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 For the reasons explained below, the Government’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s 

Demand for a Jury Trial is granted and the Defendant’s Motion for Rule 39 Relief is 

denied. 

On October 9, 2012, Defendant Fernando Arango filed a demand for jury trial 

pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Arango excuses 

his untimely demand for a jury trial because he was previously a pro se litigant, and he 

was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Defendant moves for relief under Rule 39(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendant does not dispute that he did not demand a jury trial when he filed his 

original answer on June 26, 2009, or within the 14-day time period after his original 

answer was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Defendant does not argue that his Amended 

Case 4:09-cv-00178-DCB Document 102 Filed 08/06/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Answer, which he filed with leave of the Court and without objection on October 22, 

2012, did not restart his 14-day deadline according to Rule 38. 

As the Ninth Circuit explained, Rule 38 cuts off a party’s right to demand a jury 

trial 14 days after he or she files a pleading, and an amended pleading does not revive 

that right to the issues raised in the original pleading. Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 

403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, if the issues in the original pleading and the 

amended pleading turn on the same “matrix of facts,” then a party is not entitled to a trial 

by jury. Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Summa Corp., 610 F.2d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, 

Defendant’s Amended Answer clarified certain answers filed by the Defendant pro se

and included additional affirmative defenses. The issues in the Amended Answer turn on 

the same “matrix of facts” as those in his original Answer. 

Admitting his demand for a jury trial is untimely, the Defendant asks the Court to 

overlook the technical requirement of Rule 38(b) and requests Rule 39(b) relief. Rule 

39(b) allows the Court discretion to order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury trial 

might have been demanded when no demand was made, Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b), unless 

there is no federal right to a jury trial, Fed. R. Civ P. 39(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit takes an 

extremely narrow and conservative approach in granting Rule 39(b) relief. Pac. Fisheries 

Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Den. Ins. Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court is 

not permitted to grant relief when the failure to make a timely demand results from an 

oversight or inadvertence. Id. Defendant argues that his circumstances are different from 

a typical pro se litigant because he was incarcerated during the first years of this 

litigation. Pro se prisoners, like other civil litigants, are required to comply with both the 

Case 4:09-cv-00178-DCB Document 102 Filed 08/06/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

federal and local court rules of civil procedure, notwithstanding the Court’s obligation to 

make reasonable allowances for pro se litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 

2012). The Court does not find good cause to grant Defendant’s jury demand. 

Even if the Court accepted the Defendant’s excuse as more than an oversight or 

inadvertence, relief does not exist for Defendant under Rule 39(b) because there is no 

federal right to a jury trial in a denaturalization proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2). The 

government is correct when it states the Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. The right 

of a trial by jury is provided by the Seventh Amendment or by a federal statute. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 38(a). The Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment 

because it does not apply to actions against the federal government. Lehman v. Nakshian, 

453 U.S. 156 (1981). 

The Seventh Amendment provides that suits at common law, with a value in 

controversy exceeding twenty dollars, have the right to a jury trial. Tull v. United States,

481 U.S. 412, 417 (1987). Actions that are analogous to suits at common law are 

provided the right to a jury trial, while equity suits are not. Id. Denaturalization actions 

are suits in equity to which the Seventh Amendment does not apply, and the 

denaturalization statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), does not provide a jury trial. Luria v. United 

States, 231 U.S. 9, 27-28 (1913). Id. This Court is bound by the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Luria, there is no right to a jury trial in denaturalization proceedings. Id. 

Conclusion 

The Court strikes the Defendant’s demand for a jury trial and denies him relief, 

Case 4:09-cv-00178-DCB Document 102 Filed 08/06/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

pursuant to Rule 39(a)(2). There is no right to jury trial in denaturalization proceedings. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. 74) is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

39(b) (Doc. 78) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2013. 

Case 4:09-cv-00178-DCB Document 102 Filed 08/06/13 Page 4 of 4