Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04045/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04045-0/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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

MARK STEVEN LOWERY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4045

 

H.L. PHILLIPS, Sheriff, Miller

County, Arkansas; RICKY HUNTER,

Ex-Warden, Miller County Detention

Center; and MIKE GRIFFIN, Warden,

Miller County Detention Center DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On September 19, 2006, a motion to file an answer out of time was filed on behalf of

Sheriff H.L. Phillips and Mike Griffin (Doc. 14). 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 their motion to file an answer out of time, Sheriff Phillips and Mike Griffin indicate

that through administrative oversight they failed to notify legal counsel that they had been served

with the complaint. By the time the error was discovered and the complaint sent to counsel, the

time to answer had expired.

The excusable neglect standard was recently 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

Case 4:06-cv-04045-HFB Document 15 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

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 Sheriff Phillips and Mike Griffin have demonstrated excusable neglect. Accordingly,

the motion to file an answer out of time is granted. Defendants are given until the close of

business on October 10, 2006, to file their answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-04045-HFB Document 15 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>