Adonis H. Bennett v. University of Washington, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01777
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ADONIS H. BENNETT, CASE NO. C24-1777JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, 13 et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is a motion for leave to file response out of time filed by pro se 16 Plaintiff Adonis Bennett. (Mot. (Dkt. # 31).) Mr. Bennett moves pursuant to Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) to untimely file a response to Defendants’ second 18 motion for summary judgment allegedly due to excusable neglect. (Mot. at 1-2; see also 19 MSJ (Dkt. # 27); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Having considered Mr. Bennett’s motion, 20 the record, and the applicable law, the court DENIES the motion. 21 22 1 Rule 6(b) allows the court to extend the time for filing, upon good cause and 2 motion of the party, “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ.

3 P. 6(b)(1)(B). Although excusable neglect “covers cases of negligence, carelessness and 4 inadvertent mistake[,]” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F. 3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 5 2000) (citation omitted), courts take into consideration “all relevant circumstances 6 surrounding the party’s omission” which includes, “the danger of prejudice to the 7 defendants, the length of the delay and it potential impact on judicial proceedings, the 8 reason for the delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of the movant,

9 and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 10 Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (cleaned up and citation omitted). The 11 concept of excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) is considered somewhat “elastic[,]” 12 however, at minimum it requires that the party’s neglect be excusable. Id. at 381, 392, 13 395.

14 Similarly, this District’s Local Civil Rules provide that a motion for relief from a 15 deadline “should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to 16 allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. 17 LCR 7(j) (providing that parties “must comply with the existing deadline unless the court 18 orders otherwise” and setting forth the appropriate procedure for a “true, unforeseen

19 emergency that prevents a party from meeting a deadline”). The Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure and this District’s Local Civil Rules apply equally to all litigants. See, e.g., 21 Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (providing that pro 22 se litigants are required to “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 1 litigants”); see also Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is 2 axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same

3 procedural requirements as other litigants.”) (citation omitted and emphasis added). 4 Mr. Bennett contends that he “misunderstood the deadline calculation” due to 5 (1) Defendants sending him a copy of the motion for summary judgment by email and 6 mail, (2) confusion regarding Local Civil Rule timing, and (3) a good faith 7 misunderstanding of response computation. (Mot. at 3.) Mr. Bennett further contends 8 that “[u]pon realizing the oversight, [he] promptly prepared and filed his [r]esponse and

9 [motion].” (Id.; see also id. at 4 (petitioning the court to accept his response as “timely 10 filed”).) The court, however, has not received a copy of Mr. Bennett’s response. (See 11 generally Dkt.) In light of the Ninth Circuit’s “equitable test” set forth in Pioneer Inv. 12 Servs. Co., the court concludes that Mr. Bennett simply miscalculating the deadline to file 13 a response does not constitute excusable neglect. Furthermore, by erroneously stating in

14 his motion that he already filed his response with the court, Mr. Bennett is responsible for 15 additional delays and waste of the court’s time. 16 Consequently, the court DENIES Mr. Bennett’s motion for leave to file response 17 out of time (Dkt. # 31). 18 Dated this 4 th day of March, 2026. A 19 JAMES L. ROBART 20 United States District Judge 21 22