Hunter #038313 v. Paul 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
James Ray Hunter,
Plaintiff,
v.
Theodora Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-02068-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James Hunter’s Motion to Extend Time to file
his Motion to Strike his Jury Trial Demand. (Doc. 98). The Court finds that Plaintiff has
shown good reason to amend the schedule, and so his Motion will be granted.
On September 21, 2026, the Court ordered that a motion to strike the jury demand
would be due on October 5, 2026. (Doc. 94 at 3). Plaintiff, however, filed his Motion to
Strike two days after that deadline. (Doc. 97). He then filed his Motion for an Extension of
Time, explaining why he was unable to conform to the Court’s deadline. (Doc. 98).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a retroactive extension a filing deadline
for good cause “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B). When considering the moving party’s neglect, the Court will consider: (1) the
danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) the length of the delay; (3) the reason for
the delay including whether it was in reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether
the moving party’s conduct was made in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th
Case 2:24-cv-02068-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/09/26 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
Cir. 2004).
Here, the first Pioneer factor favors Plaintiff. To permit this late filing would not
prejudice the Defendants. The Motion to Strike was filed just two days after the deadline
and that Motion did not appear to change the nature of the case after a significant delay.
See (Doc. 97); cf. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000).
Nor is the length of the delay significant; two days is well under the length of time
of other delays found to be permissible. See, e.g., Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 747
(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that a 64-day delay in seeking relief was a “substantial” delay).
The third factor, which carries the greatest weight, likewise favors Plaintiff. See In
re Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc., 70 F. App'x 950, 952 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hospital
del Maestro v. NLRB, 263 F.3d 173, 175 (1st Cir. 2001)). The Court finds that Plaintiff was
reasonably diligent in his attempt to conform to the filing deadline.
As Plaintiff explained, he was prepared to file his Motion to Strike on October 5,
2026, but was unable to do so because the prison library was not open, despite its general
operating hours. (Doc. 98 at 2). This was because the librarian was attending a training
course that Plaintiff was unaware of. (Id.). Plaintiff then completed his filing the next time
the library opened. (Id.). The circumstances behind this late filing are not indicative of
carelessness or a cavalier attitude towards the Court’s deadlines. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at
392; cf. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
The final factor—good faith—similarly favors the Motion. Plaintiff had his filing
complete on time and intended on filing it before the court’s deadline expired. But because
of circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to. (Doc. 98 at 2). He sought to rectify
his late filing without any further delay. (Id.). Thus, Plaintiff acted in good faith to timely
file his Motion to Strike throughout the relevant period.
With each of the Pioneer factors weighing in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds good
cause to amend its deadline, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike will be therefore accepted as
timely filed.
Accordingly,
Case 2:24-cv-02068-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/09/26 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 to Extend Time (Doc. 98) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, due to the impending final pretrial deadlines,
Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Motion to Strike (Doc. 97) is accelerated to October
16, 2026.
Dated this 9th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-02068-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3