Williams #218584 v. Otter et al

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
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jeremy J Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
N. Otter, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-00924-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an extension of time (Doc. 152)
to complete and return the subpoenas and USM-285 forms for Jaime Bravo and Ryan
Meyers. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.
I. DISCUSSION
The Court’s February 17, 2026 Order (Doc. 129) instructed Plaintiff to return these
forms within 7 days. Plaintiff states that he did not receive the Court’s February 17, 2026
Order until March 2, 2026, and now requests that the deadline to return these forms be
extended to March 12, 2026.
Rule 6(b) states that “the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion
made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(B). Excusable neglect rests on the relevant circumstances
surrounding a party’s failure to meet a deadline. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The Supreme Court has set forth four factors
to be considered in determining if excusable neglect exists: “(1) the danger of prejudice to
Case 2:24-cv-00924-JAT Document 153 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
27
28
the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable
control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.”
Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
The Court finds that there is little to no danger of prejudice to Defendants because
the Proposed Pretrial Order (Doc. 149) indicates that Defendants also plan to call Ryan
Meyers and Jaime Bravo as witnesses. (Doc. 149 at 20–21). The Court also finds that the
length of delay will not cause a significant impact on judicial proceedings. Moreover,
Plaintiff alleges that he has in good faith attempted to meet the Court’s deadlines and that
his failure to do so was due to circumstances of his incarceration beyond his control. See
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (“‘[S]trict time limits . . . ought not
to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se prisoner plaintiff’s
incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” (quoting Tarantino v.
Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967))).
In sum, the Court finds that all four factors weigh in favor of granting the motion.
The Court will therefore extend the deadline for Plaintiff to complete and return the
subpoenas and USM-285 forms for Jaime Bravo and Ryan Meyers to Thursday, March 12,
2026.
The Court is aware that Plaintiff has expressed an ongoing difficulty in meeting the
Court’s deadlines due to circumstances of his incarceration beyond his control, particularly
relating to delays in the prison’s mail and e-filing systems. To avoid further delays caused
by these difficulties, the Court will require that, going forward, any motions for extensions
of time filed by Plaintiff must include the late document Plaintiff would like the Court to
consider. If Plaintiff files an extension of time before the original deadline has passed,
Plaintiff should not wait for the Court to rule on the motion for extension of time before
filing the late document but should instead file the late document as soon as possible.
I. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
Case 2:24-cv-00924-JAT Document 153 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
27
28
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an extension of time to complete and
return the subpoenas and USM-285 forms for Jaime Bravo and Ryan Meyers (Doc. 152) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall complete and return the forms by Thursday, March 12, 2026.
Plaintiff must also tender the witness fees of $141.07 for each witness as calculated by
defense counsel (Doc. 130). The United States Marshal will not provide service if Plaintiff
fails to comply with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future motions for extensions of time filed
by Plaintiff must include the late document Plaintiff would like the Court to consider. If
Plaintiff is unable to meet the Court’s deadlines despite his best efforts, Plaintiff should
file the late document as soon as possible to avoid further delays.
Dated this 5th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00924-JAT Document 153 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3