Layman v. Stuart Allen & Associates, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER setting aside 7 the Court's Order of June 7, 2013; granting 8 Plaintiff's MOTION for a Four-Day Extension of Time to the extent that Plaintiff's amended complaint 9 in response to the Court's show cause order will be considered timely; and Defendant will have until July 2, 2013, to respond to the amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Karen K Caldwell on June 12, 2013. (mailed to Mr. Layman) (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
GREG LAYMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

STUART ALLAN & ASSOCIATES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-155

ORDER

*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Greg Layman’s motion for a four-day
extension of time. (DE 8). On May 21, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro
se, to respond within fourteen days and show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.
That deadline expired on June 5, 2013. It was the second time Plaintiff had missed a deadline.
On March 27, 2013, the Court had given Plaintiff fourteen days to provide a more definite
statement of the allegations in his complaint. Plaintiff did not respond, so the Court entered the
show cause order. Therefore, on June 7, 2013, after the second missed deadline without a more
definite statement, the Court entered an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and dismissing the action, without prejudice. (DE 7).
Through this motion, Plaintiff seeks an extension of the show cause order’s deadline. He
states that he received notice of the show cause order via mail on May 24, 2013, and so he
calculated the deadline as June 7, 2013. To meet his self-calculated deadline, he hand-delivered
this motion (DE 8) and an amended complaint providing a more definite statement of his
allegations. (DE 9). The Court construes the former of these documents liberally and in pro se
Plaintiff’s favor as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) request for relief from the Court’s

June 7 order. Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d 901, 903 (6th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Grounds
for relief under Rule 60(b) include the existence of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Pro se parties may obtain relief after committing

understandable procedural errors. Marshall v. Monroe & Sons, Inc., 615 F.2d 1156, 1161 (6th
Cir. 1980) (“The fact that a defendant was misled by certain procedural requirements, resulting
in his failure to file a timely answer, has been a proper consideration by the courts in determining
whether to grant relief under 60(b).”).
In this case, Plaintiff understandably miscalculated the deadline based on his receipt of
the Court’s order on May 24, rather than its entry on May 21. This miscalculation led to his
hand delivery on June 7, only two days after the actual deadline and just hours after the Court’s
dismissal order. Considering the relevant circumstances, there is little risk of prejudice to
Defendant Stuart Allan & Associates, a minimal delay to the judicial proceedings, an
understandable reason for Plaintiff’s delay, which was also minimal, and good faith by Plaintiff.
See Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 386 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.
v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Given Plaintiff’s actions, and
also bearing in mind courts’ strong preference for deciding cases on their merits, the Court
concludes that any negligence by the Plaintiff is excusable and he is entitled to relief under Rule
60(b). Therefore, the Court will set aside its earlier order and set a time for Defendant to
respond. See Fed. Civ. R. P. 12(a)(4).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court’s Order of June 7, 2013 (DE 7) is SET ASIDE;

2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a four-day extension of time is GRANTED (DE 8) to the extent that
Plaintiff’s amended complaint (DE 9) in response the Court’s show cause order will be
considered timely; and
3. Defendant will have until July 2, 2013, to respond to the amended complaint.
This the 12th day of June, 2013.

3