Opinion ID: 741980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Pioneer

Text: 18 test on plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment. 19 At the time the district court entered its order denying plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment, Swimmer seemed to require that a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief following a failure to comply with court rules be rejected. Such a per se rule cannot exist after Pioneer. There the Court noted that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 'excusable neglect.'  507 U.S. at 392, 113 S.Ct. at 1496 (emphasis added). Thus, although a late filing will ordinarily not be excused by negligence, 2 that possibility is by no means foreclosed. 20 While pro se litigants are not excused from following court rules, it is not apparent that Briones' failure to respond to the motion to dismiss resulted only from a failure to read and attempt to follow court rules. It may have been a communication problem within his group of assistants. In light of Pioneer and the holding in this case, it is appropriate for the district court to reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment.