IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 12-0566-WS-N

 )

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

The plaintiff has filed a jury demand, (Doc. 86), to which the remaining 

defendant has objected. (Doc. 88). The plaintiff declined the opportunity to file a 

reply brief in support of his demand for a jury. (Doc. 87).

Between September and December 2012, the plaintiff, proceeding without 

counsel, filed five iterations of his complaint. (Docs. 1, 7, 11, 12, 17). In none of 

them did he demand a jury. In April 2013, the defendants answered the complaint. 

(Doc. 30). No subsequent pleadings have been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) 

(listing the universe of allowable pleadings).

A party must demand a jury in writing “no later than 14 days after the last 

pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1). In this case, 

that deadline passed on May 7, 2013. “A party waives a jury trial unless its 

demand is properly served and filed.” Id. Rule 38(d). However, “the court may, 

on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been 

demanded.” Id. Rule 39(b). The Court construes the plaintiff’s jury demand as a 

motion under Rule 39(b).

“In this circuit, the general rule governing belated jury requests under Rule 

39(b) is that the trial court should grant a jury trial in the absence of strong and 

compelling reasons to the contrary.” Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1267 (11th

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 97 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Cir. 1983) (internal quotes omitted). “The district courts have broad discretion 

when considering Rule 39(b) motions and often freely grant such motions after 

considering (1) whether the case involves issues which are best tried to a jury; (2) 

whether granting the motion would result in a disruption of the court’s schedule or 

that of the adverse party; (3) the degree of prejudice to the adverse party; (4) the 

length of the delay in having requested a jury trial; and (5) the reason for the 

movant’s tardiness in requesting a jury trial.” Id.

The defendant, who has argued that the plaintiff waived a jury trial under 

Rule 38, has not addressed Rule 39(b). The Court therefore has nothing before it 

to indicate that the defendant would suffer legally meaningful prejudice or would 

have his schedule disrupted should the case be tried by a jury. Since trial is still 

approximately three months off, the Court concludes there will be no such 

disruption or prejudice. Nor will the Court’s schedule be disrupted by a jury trial. 

The case involves questions as to what the defendant knew regarding the risk of 

injury to the plaintiff from a fellow inmate and what the defendant did or did not 

do in response, plus questions concerning the plaintiff’s damages from the inmate 

attack; nothing about these issues suggests they are best tried without a jury. The 

plaintiff did wait two years to seek a jury, but he is a state prisoner who 

represented himself until the Magistrate Judge appointed counsel in December 

2014. (Doc. 74). 

The defendant has identified, and the Court detects, no “strong and 

compelling reasons” not to grant the plaintiff a jury trial. Accordingly, the Court 

exercises its discretion in favor of a jury trial. For the reasons set forth above, the 

plaintiff’s Rule 39(b) motion for a jury trial is granted. The plaintiff’s claim 

against the remaining defendant will be tried to a jury.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2015. 

 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 97 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 2