Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04046/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04046-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

SHAWN E. DANIEL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4046 

H.L. PHILLIPS, Sheriff, 

Miller County, Arkansas;

RICKY HUNTER, Ex-Warden;

SGT. RENE WRIGHT;

MIKE GRIFFIN, Warden; and

NURSE TERRY PORTER DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On December 29, 2006, a show cause order was entered (Doc. 13) based on the failure

of Sheriff H.L. Phillips, Mike Griffin, Rene Wright, and Ricky Hunter to respond to the

complaint. On January 2, 2007, these defendants filed a response to the show cause order (Doc.

14) and a motion to file an answer out of time (Doc. 15). 

Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may enlarge the

time provided by the rules to, among other things, answer a complaint. If the time provided in

the applicable rule, here the 20 days set forth in Rule 12(a)(1)(A) of the Federal of Civil

Procedure, has expired, the court may extend the time allowed "where the failure to act was the

result of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). In other words, the court has the authority to

allow late filings when the moving party demonstrates excusable neglect.

In themotion to file an answer out of time, counsel for defendants indicate the defendants

were served and as a result of administrative oversight failed to notify legal counsel that they had

been served with the summons. By the time the error was discovered and the complaint sent to

counsel, the time to answer had expired.

Case 4:06-cv-04046-HFB Document 21 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

 The excusable neglect standard was discussed in the case of Welch & Forbes, Inc. v.

Cendant Corp.(In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litigation), 233 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2000). The

court said:

In Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113

S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the rule

authorizing courts to accept late filings where the failure of a party to act is the

result of "excusable neglect" contemplates that courts are permitted, where

appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or

carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond a party's control.

At the outset, the Supreme Court pronounced that the inquiry is essentially

equitable, and necessitates considering a situation's totality: 

Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for

determining what sorts of neglect will be considered "excusable,"

we conclude that the determination is at bottom an equitable one,

taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the

party's omission. 

Welch, 233 F.3d at 196 (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).

The court is afforded great leeway in granting or refusing enlargements of time under

Rule 6. See e.g., Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 584 (1st Cir. 1994). We

believe defendants have demonstrated excusable neglect. Accordingly, the motion to file an

answer out of time (Doc. 15) is granted. Defendants are given until January 22, 2007, to file

their answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of January 2007.

/s/ Harry F. Barnes 

 HON. HARRY F. BARNES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-04046-HFB Document 21 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>