the court has “wide latitude in controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude given the district courts extends as well to the manner in which it orders the course and scope of discovery”
How later courts described this case
- the court has “wide latitude in controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude given the district courts extends as well to the manner in which it orders the course and scope of discovery”
- applying prisoner mailbox rule to § 1983 case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:23-cv-00005-MR
PATRICK J. CHAMBERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
TODD ISHEE, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Lisa Huffman and
Kelly A. Towery’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 50] and on the Plaintiff’s
pro se “Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Pretrial Order” [Doc. 54] that
was docketed as a Motion for Sanctions.1
The Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Alexander Correctional
Institution.2 The Amended Complaint passed initial review against
Defendants Huffman and Towery for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. [See Docs. 27, 36]. On January 10, 2024, the Court entered
1 The Plaintiff is reminded to clearly title any request for relief as a “Motion.” [Doc. 3 at ¶
3 (Order of Instructions)]. Any requests that are not so titled will not receive a response
by the Court.
2 The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the North Carolina Central Prison.
a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan appointing North Carolina
Prisoner Legal Services (“NCPLS”) to assist the Plaintiff with discovery;
setting the discovery cutoff date as May 3, 2024; and making dispositive
motions due on June 3, 2024.3 [Doc. 39]. On January 18, 2024, NCPLS
entered a notice of Non-Representation, stating that it is unable to accept
the appointment in this matter. [Doc. 40].
On May 15, 2024,4 the Plaintiff filed a Letter to the Clerk dated April 24,
2024 along with a Notice of Depositions on Written Questions addressed to
Dr. Diaz, a psychologist at Bertie CI; Jacoby Chambers and Trevor Deaver,
inmates; Richard Bates, a medical provider at Alexander CI; Defendant
Huffman, and FHU Slater, a correctional officer who was dismissed as a
defendant in this case. [Docs. 47, 47-1, 47-2]. On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff
filed a First Requests for Production of Documents, First Set of
Interrogatories, and Request for Admission, and a Letter addressed to the
Court, all dated April 22, 2024. [Doc. 48, 48-1, 48-2, 48-3].
3 The Defendants filed timely motions to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions,
which were granted. [See Docs. 49, 57, 61]. Dispositive motions are due on October 3,
2024. [Aug. 20, 2024 Text-Only Order].
4 The dates upon which these documents were docketed on the Court’s record are used
here because the Plaintiff did not certify the dates upon which he placed his Notice of
Depositions [Doc. 47] and his other discovery requests [Doc. 48] in the prison’s mail
system. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner
mailbox rule); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying
prisoner mailbox rule to § 1983 case).
In the Motion for Protective Order, the Defendants asks the Court to
excuse them from responding to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests and from
appearing at the Plaintiff’s noticed depositions, on the grounds that the
discovery requests are tardy; the Plaintiff attempted to serve the deposition
notices on nonparties without a subpoena; and the Plaintiff has not secured
a qualified officer with the required recording devices. [Doc. 50; see Doc.
51].
The Plaintiff argues that he lacks legal expertise; that he filed timely
the discovery requests pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule; that he has
arranged with “qualified” prison staff to tape record the depositions; and that
he has requested subpoena forms so that he can serve his proposed
witnesses. [Doc. 53]. The Plaintiff further requests sanctions from defense
counsel because counsel has failed to consult with him before seeking
extensions of time. [Doc. 54].
The Plaintiff does not certify that he attempted in good faith to resolve
the discovery disputes before engaging the Court’s assistance. The lack of
certification alone warrants the denial of the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1); see also LCvR 7.1(b) (a non-dispositive civil motion “must show
that counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of
disagreement or describe the timely attempts of the movant to confer with
opposing counsel;” motions that fail to do so “may be summarily denied”).
Nor did the Plaintiff present his discovery requests in a timely manner. The
discovery deadline expired on May 3, 2024, and the Plaintiff has not moved
for an extension of time. Assuming arguendo that the Plaintiff’s discovery
requests were properly served on the dates he filed them with the Court, this
was not sufficiently in advance of the discovery completion date so as to
comply with the Court’s pretrial Order. [See Doc. 39 at 4]. He did not timely
seek an extension of those deadlines or to reopen discovery and, in any
event, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for doing so. See
generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (a scheduling order may be modified “only
for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); Ardrey v. United Parcel
Service, 798 F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986) (the court has “wide latitude in
controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude given the district courts extends as
well to the manner in which it orders the course and scope of discovery”).
The Plaintiff has also failed to indicate that he has the ability to pay the costs
associated with his requests.5 United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317,
321 (1976) (“expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is
5 The Plaintiff’s contention that he has adequately arranged to take depositions by written
question, by asking a prison employee to report with a tape recorder, is also unavailing.
See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 31.
proper only when authorized by Congress”). Accordingly, the Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order is granted.
In his Motion for Sanctions, the Plaintiff complains that counsel for the
Defendants has failed to consult with him before seeking relief such as an
extension of the deadline to file dispositive motions. [Doc. 54]. The Court’s
Local Civil Rules provide that “[c]onsultation is not required for ... motions
where the moving party is represented and the non-moving party is
unrepresented....”. LCvR 7.1(b)(2). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions is denied.
IT 1S, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 50] is
GRANTED, and the Defendants are excused from responding to
the Plaintiff's discovery requests [see Docs. 47, 48].
2. The Plaintiff's pro se “Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the
Pretrial Order” [Doc. 54] is construed as a Motion for Sanctions
and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: August 26, 2024
Ste ey
Chief United States District Judge AS