Burns v. City of St. Louis, Missouri et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ASHLEY BURNS., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:24-cv-00990 MAL
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants, Officers Williams and Ingram’s, Motion for Leave to File
Answer Out of Time, Doc. 47. In this case, Plaintiff Ashley Burns claims that the City of St. Louis
(City), Officer Williams, and Officer Ingram violated her rights by placing her alone in a cell with
a male sex offender who subsequently sexually assaulted her.
The City filed a motion to dismiss. On November 22, 2025, the Court granted the motion
in part and denied it in part. Doc. 41. The allegations against the City were dismissed, leaving the
case to proceed against Officers Williams and Ingram. Under the federal rules, Officers Williams
and Ingram had until December 8, 2025, to file their answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). They
failed to do so. On January 23, 2026, Officers Williams and Ingram filed the instant Motion for
Leave to File Answer Out of Time, Doc. 47. 	They claim the failure to file their answer on time
was the result of “inadvertently missing the deadline.” Doc. 47. Burns has not filed a response to
this motion and the time to do so has passed. 	For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time, Doc. 47.
I. 	Legal Standard for Extensions of Time After Time Expires
Rule 6(b) states in relevant part that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified
time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time” on a party’s motion “after the time has
expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). 	“The
determination of whether neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all
relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.” 	Chorosevic v. MetLife Choices, 600
F.3d 934, 947 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Relevant considerations include
the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and
whether the movant acted in good faith.” Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger, 5 F.4th 849 (8th Cir. 2021).
Case: 4:24-cv-00990-MAL Doc. #: 48 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
When the decision may foreclose adjudication on the merits, Courts also consider the existence of
a meritorious defense. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Progress Rail Servs. Corp., 256 F.3d 781 (8th Cir.
2001). 	In these situations where the judicial disfavor for default positions is implicated, it is
improper for the Court to primarily focus on the reason for the delay. Chorosevic 600 F.3d at 947.
II. 	Application of Law to Facts
With respect to the first element, prejudice, the Court finds that any prejudice to Burns is
minimal. 	Burns has not filed a response to the motion or otherwise indicated that she was
prejudiced by the delay. The Court further notes that this error was brought to the Court’s attention
by Officers Williams and Ingram. With respect to the second element—the length of the delay—
was short (51 days). 	With respect to the third element—the reason for the delay—Officers
Williams and Ingram claim the delay was caused by a simple mistake. 	While not particularly
compelling, this is not fatal. With respect to the fourth element, the Court believes that Officers
Williams and Ingram acted in good faith. They made an inadvertent mistake and brought it to the
Court’s attention after realizing what had happened. 	Finally, Officers Williams and Ingram may
well have a meritorious defense, and denying their motion will prevent them from presenting it.
For these reasons, this Court grants Officers Williams and Ingram’s Motion for Leave to
File Answer Out of Time. 	They have until February 16, 2026, to separately file the proposed
answer attached to the motion.
* 	* 	*
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time, Doc.
47, is GRANTED. 	Defendants have until February 16, 2026, to separately file the proposed
answer attached to their motion.
Dated this 10 th day of February 2026.
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-00990-MAL Doc. #: 48 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>