Prosper v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Jacoby Pierre Prosper,
Plaintiff,
v.
Equifax Information Services,
Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., and TransUnion LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-4844
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pending before the court is Plaintiff Jacoby Prosper’s Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Out of Time. ECF
No. 39. While the court understands that Defendants have the
right to respond, in the interest of time- and cost-savings, the court
enters this order without waiting for Defendants’ response.
The 	procedural 	history 	has 	been 	made 	unnecessarily
complicated, mostly by Plaintiff’s own failures to monitor the
docket sheet (in the case that he filed) and to read and comply with
the court’s orders and instructions on a timely basis. Plaintiff is
hereby ORDERED to:
(1) keep 	himself 	apprised 	of 	the 	activity 	on 	the 	court’s
docket;
(2) carefully read all docket entries and court orders; and
(3) strictly comply with all court orders.
Plaintiff is hereby WARNED that the court will not accept
as an excuse in the future that the Plaintiff failed to follow an order
because he did not realize it had been entered. Future failure to
follow the court’s orders will result in the application of
appropriate 	sanctions, 	including, 	but 	not 	limited 	to, 	a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04844 Document 42 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.
On January 15, 2026, the Plaintiff failed to attend the initial
conference in this case, so the court set a show cause hearing on
January 29, 2026. ECF No. 23. On the same day the show cause
hearing was set, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Excuse Failure to
Appear and Reset Initial Conference. ECF No. 24. The fact that
Plaintiff filed the latter document mere hours after the court
entered its show cause order strongly indicates that Plaintiff is
well aware of the events and entries being placed on the court’s
docket.
The 	court 	accepted 	Plaintiff’s 	excuse 	and 	entered 	a
scheduling order on January 29, 2026, with an amended pleadings
deadline of February 16, 2026. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff did not seek
leave to amend his complaint by the deadline, and on March 26,
2026, Experian filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
ECF No. 28. After Experian notified the court that Plaintiff had
failed to respond to its motion, the court, sua sponte, allowed
Plaintiff until May 8, 2026, to amend his complaint. ECF No. 32.
In the same order, the court denied the pending motions to dismiss
as moot and stayed discovery in the case pending resolution of any
forthcoming motion to dismiss. Id.
Just hours after the court gave Plaintiff leave to amend and
denied the motions to dismiss his case, Plaintiff filed a motion
seeking leave to respond to one of the motions to dismiss. ECF
No. 33. The court denied his motion as moot because it had already
denied the motions to dismiss and allowed Plaintiff to amend his
complaint. ECF No. 34. The court reminded Plaintiff that he had
until May 8, 2026, to file his amended complaint. Id.
The May 8, 2026 deadline to amend came and went. On
June 8, 2026, the court entered an order reinstating the motion to
dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings, which had both
Case 4:25-cv-04844 Document 42 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
been previously denied as moot because of the court’s expectation
that Plaintiff would amend his complaint. ECF No. 36. As Plaintiff
has done twice before, just hours after the court reinstated the
motions, 	Plaintiff filed a new 	motion 	for leave to 	amend his
complaint. ECF No. 39. In the motion, he acknowledges that he
missed the court’s deadline to file his amended complaint and
blames the delay on a change in mailing address. Id. at 1. He wrote
his new address on the bottom of the Motion. Id. He also attached
a 	copy 	of 	his 	proposed 	amended 	complaint 	to 	the 	Motion.
ECF No. 39-1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides that a court
may, for good cause, extend the time for a party to act “after the
time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable
neglect.” 	“Excusable 	neglect” 	is 	a 	“somewhat 	elastic” 	concept.
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.
380, 	392 	(1993). 	It 	requires 	the 	court 	to 	make 	an 	equitable
determination, “taking account of all relevant circumstances . . . .”
Id. at 395. Such circumstances include the length of the delay, the
actual and potential impact of the delay, and the reason for the
delay. Id. In examining the reason for the delay, the court should
evaluate whether the delay “was within the reasonable control of
the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id.
While this delay appears to have been within Plaintiff’s
control, and the timing of Plaintiff’s filings is suspect, the court
cannot say that he is acting in bad faith. Moreover, the delays that
Plaintiff has caused will not unduly prejudice Defendants nor have
great impact on the progression of this case. Essentially, Plaintiff
is asking that the court return this case to where it was on
April 23, 2026, when the court allowed leave to amend and denied
the pending motions to dismiss as moot. ECF No. 32. Accordingly,
and reluctantly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint Out of Time, ECF No. 39, is GRANTED.
Case 4:25-cv-04844 Document 42 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
It is ORDERED that the clerk shall file ECF No. 39-1 as
Plaintiff’s 	First 	Amended 	Complaint. 	The 	order 	reinstating
Defendants’ 	Rule 	12 	Motions, 	ECF 	No. 	36, 	is 	VACATED.
Defendants have until July 8, 2026, to answer the First Amended
Complaint or to otherwise move under Rule 12.
Again, the court believes that Plaintiff is actively reviewing
the court’s docket and has the ability to make filings within mere
hours after the court enters its orders. Excuses about not being
able to monitor the docket or the inability to make timely filings
will no longer be accepted. Strict and full compliance with the
court’s orders is expected and required. “[A] party has a duty of
diligence to inquire about the status of a case . . . .” Associated
Marine Equip. LLC v. Jones, 301 F. App’x 346, 349 (5th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir.
1985)). Plaintiff is ADMONISHED that it is his responsibility to
monitor the docket in order to stay informed of all case activity and
to 	promptly 	inform 	the 	court 	of 	any 	changes 	to 	his 	contact
information.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on June 22, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04844 Document 42 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4