Marshall v. McCain et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
CALVIN L. MARSHALL 	PLAINTIFF
ADC #090207
V. 	Case No. 2:22-CV-00135-LPR-BBM
KELLY MCCAIN,
Nurse Practitioner, EARU, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
There are two issues pending before the Court: Plaintiff Calvin L. Marshall’s
Motion for Extension, (Doc. 79), and Defendant Monica Dunn’s belated Answer, (Doc.
78). For the following reasons, Marshall’s Motion is granted, as modified, and Dunn’s
Answer is accepted as her operative pleading in this matter.
Motion for Extension. On October 27, 2025, separate Defendants Anthony Jackson,
Stephen Lane, and Valerie Westbrook filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses from
Marshall. (Doc. 72). After Marshall failed to respond, the Court granted the Motion to
Compel and directed Marshall to file his response to the ADC Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on or before December 1, 2025.
(Doc. 76).
On December 1, Marshall filed the pending Motion for Extension. (Doc. 79).
Marshall states that his hand and fingers are swollen. Id. And he is unable to respond to
Defendants’ Motion to Compel due to the pain. Id. Marshall asks for “at the very least 30
days to answer the motion to compel, until the swelling and pain has eased up.” Id.
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Because the Court has already granted the Motion to Compel, Marshall’s Motion
for Extension is moot as written. However, the Court liberally construes Marshall’s Motion
as requesting additional time to respond to the ADC Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents. For good cause shown, the Motion is granted.
Marshall will be given additional time to respond to discovery. And the discovery
and dispositive motions deadline will be reset for all parties. The Court accepts Marshall’s
Motion for Extension as his notice of intent to prosecute this case. See (Doc. 76).
Dunn’s Belated Answer. After Dunn failed to file a timely answer, the Court
directed her to explain why her belated Answer should not be stricken from the record and
why default should not be entered against her. (Docs. 74, 81). Dunn filed a pro se response,
stating that she immediately sought out legal counsel after she was served with the
Complaint, (Doc. 80); Dunn’s counsel filed a response also, stating that she filed an Answer
the same day she was assigned to represent Dunn, (Doc. 82). Thus, while it appears perhaps
some neglect or carelessness occurred, it is unclear who or what caused the delay in Dunn’s
filing. Regardless, considering all relevant circumstances and factors—including the
marginal length of the delay, the minor impact on judicial proceedings, and Dunn’s good
faith attempt to obtain counsel—the Court finds that the neglect is excusable. See United
States v. Mink, 107 F.4th 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2024) (discussing the Pioneer factors for
excusable neglect).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Marshall’s Motion for Extension, (Doc. 79), is GRANTED as modified.
2. 	Dunn’s Answer, (Doc. 78), is accepted as her operative pleading.
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	On or before January 5, 2026, Marshall must respond to all discovery
requests in the ADC Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents, (Doc. 72-1 at 3–17). 1
4. 	If Dunn intends to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
exhaustion, she must do so on or before January 5, 2026.
5. 	The discovery and merits-dispositive-motion deadlines are extended for all
parties. Discovery must be completed on or before February 6, 2026. Dispositive motions
on the merits must be filed on or before February 27, 2026.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Marshall is reminded that if he fails to comply with this Order to provide discovery responses, he
may be subject to sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3