Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Wesley Birrell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1576 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Joseph Bick, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 9, 2005, defendants requested leave to file and

serve an answer to the amended complaint two days late. They

also filed and served an answer. 

To obtain an extension based on a request filed beyond the

time the answer should have been filed he must show excusable

neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). To determine whether neglect is

excusable, I must consider the danger of prejudice to plaintiff,

the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was 

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 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

2

within defendants’ control, and whether defendants acted in good

faith. Committee for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc., v. Yost, 92 F.3d

814, 825 & n.4. (9th Cir. 1996). 

Defendant asserts counsel was on leave from June 1, 2005,

until November 2, 2005, and November 6 counsel realized the

answer had to be filed November 7. 

Two days’ delay will not prejudice plaintiff or adversely

impact these proceedings and the court finds defendant acted in

good faith.

Defendants’ November 9, 2005, request is granted and the

answer is accepted as timely filed.

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2