BYNUM v. POOLE, No. 1:2015cv00960 - Document 19 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION as to OLANDER R. BYNUM, signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 11/17/2016, that for the reasons stated herein, RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default (Docket Ent ry 13 ) and that the Clerk's entry of default (Docket Entry 11 ) be set aside. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Compensation and Motion for Judgment Due to Default (Docket Entry 15 ). (Butler, Carol)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BYNUM v. POOLE Doc. 19 IN THE UNITBD STATES DISTRIÇT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA OL,A.NDER R. B\î]UM, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v KATY POOLE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) 1:15CV960 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter comes before the Coun upon Defendant IQty Poole's Motion to Set r{.side Errtry of Default. (Docket entry 1,3.) Also before the Cout is Plaintiff Olander R. Bynum's "Motion for Compensation and Motion forJudgment Due to Default." pocket Entry 15.) The matters are rþe for disposition. For the following reasons, it is recommended that the Court gra;nt Defendant's motion and deny Plaintifls motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, pro U.S.C. S 1983 se, filed this action on November 16, 201,5 alleging a violation utder 42 of Plaintiffs teligrous dghts. (See generalþ Complaint, Docket F,ntty 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "approved the cancellation lsligious services - services otherwise scheduled to take place þpdl of all non-Chdstian 3,201,5] -in honot of 'Good Ftiday'a Christian holiday." (Id.ÍlV.) Plaintiff is a devout Muslim, and he participates in 'Juma Service." (Id.) Plnntiff alleges thatJuma Service was held every Friday, except,A.pril Dockets.Justia.com 3,201,5, which was Good Friday. Qd.) Plaintiff seeks punitive damages ftom Defendant for "daringto distespect Islam as has been done so overdy in this cse." (1/. T VI.) On Septemb er 1.2,201,6,the Clerk entered default against Defendant pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for neithet filing an answer not otherwise responding in this matter. (Docket Entry 11.) On September 1,9,201,6, Defendant filed het pending motion. (Docket Entry 13.) In support of het motion, Defendant submitted an afftdavitalong with Caitlin Brooks, .Associate Genetal Counsel in the General Counsel's Office of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ('NCDPS GCO"). pocket Entries 1,, 14- with the sulrunons and complaint in this action 1,4-2.) Defendant contends that an envelope was forwarded to her office at the Scotland Cortectional Institution on March 1,,201,6. (Poole .A.ff. T 7, Docket E.,t y 1,4-1.) She never signed a receipt of the envelope. (Id.) Upon information and belief Defendant asserts that the envelope was signed by "L. Mclver" in the ptison mailroom. (d.) After teceiving the summons and complaint, Defendant directed het assistant to noti$r the NCDPS GCO to assist in the mattef. (1d.118.) Defendant assetts that she nevet teceived a response needed to take further action. ftom the NCDPS GCO that would indicate that Defendant (1d.111,0.) Thus, Defendant mistakenly believed that this matter had been tesolved until she received notice of the Entty of Default on September 1,6,201.6. (Id.nÍ.) Attotney Btooks at the NCDPS GCO indicated that she teceived notice of the pending action on Match 3, 201,6. (Brooks Aff. T 5, Docket E.rtry 1,4-2.) She indicates that she inadvertently ovedooked the notice at the time, and though not an excuse, the notmal ptocess for summonses is that they are sent directly to the North Carolina Attorney Genetal's Office. 2 (Id. n 9.) Attorney Brooks took responsibility for the mistake and furthet stated that Defendant should not be held tesponsible. (Id.1l11,.) II. DISCUSSION A. Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default Pursuant to the Fedetal Rules of Civil Ptocedute, "[t]he Court may set aside an entry of default for good cause[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The Foutth Circuit has held that cettain factors must be considered to determine if there is "good cause" to set aside an entry of default whethet the moving party has a meritorious defense, (2) whether (1) it acts with reasonable promptness, (3) the personal tesponsibility of the defaulting patty, (4) the prejudice to the party, (5) whethet there is a history of dilatory action, and (6) the availability of sanctions less drastic. Palne ex re/. Estate of Calqada u. Brake, 439 F.3d 1,98,204-05 (4th Cir. 2006). "Aty doubts about whethet telief should be granted should be tesolved in favor of setting aside the default so that the case may be heard on the merits." Tolson u. Hodgq 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir.1'969) (citation omitted). Resolution of motions made under Rules 55(c) "is amattet which lies largely within the disctetion of the trial judge[.]" Consol. Masonry dz Fireproofing Inc. u. Il/agnan Const. Corþ.,383F.2d249,251, (4th Cir. 1961). Considering the factors ín Pa1ne, the be granted. The Court ftst Cout concludes that Defendant's motion should considets whether Defendant has raised a medtorious defense. Plaintiffs complaint is essentially alleging a violation of his constitutional dght to fteely exetcise his teligion. Q)ocket F;nty 2.) Defendant asserts that incarceration does not sttip ptisonets ftom all constitutional dghts, but such dghts may be "curtailed in furtherance of the legitimate goals of a cortectional institution, including the need to maintain internal security." (Docket J Etttty 1,4 at3.) Case law supports this argument. See e.9., Bell u. IWolfth,441 U.S. 520,546 (1979) ("fM]aintaining institutional security and preserving internal ordet and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation ot retr.action convicted prisoners and ptettial detainees )'); see of the retained constitutional tights of both al¡o Haase u. Vaøght, 993 F.2d 1079, 1082 (4th Clr. 1,993) ("A. detainee's Fitst Amendment rþhts may be restticted in the intetest of prison security."); Nchardson u. Irons,877 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1989) ("Prison officials may restict the practice of religion whete the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate secutity concetns."). Moteover, the Supreme Coutt has held that "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional dghts, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Tømer a. SofltJ,482 U.S. 78,89 (1987). Defendant also cites case law wheteby coutts give some deference as to decision-making by pdson officials regarding pdson administration. See Ta/or u. Freenøn,34 F.3d 266,268 (4th Cir. 1994) ("It is well established that absent the most extraotdinary circumstances, federal coutts ate not to immetse themselves in the management of state prisons or substitute their judgment for that of the trained penologicai authodties chatged with the administration of such facilities."). Defendant also relies upon other defenses, including immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and the possibility that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Docket Entty 1,4 at 4-5.) After teviewing the totality of such arguments, the Court concludes that Defendant has proffered a potentially meritorious defense, which weighs in favor of Defendant. As to the second and thitd factors, both weigh in favot of Defendant. Defendant acted with reasonable promptness in filing the pending motion within days of teceiving the notice of entry of default. Additionally, the affidavits 4 demonsúate that Defendant's personal responsibility reasonable for her failure to respond in this matter was minimal. Defendant acted in assuming that the matter would be tesolved once forwarded to the NCDPS GCO. Thus, these factots weigh in favot of setting aside the default. The remainiûg factors also weigh in favor of Defendant. Considedng the fouth factot, Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by setting aside the default in this action. Plaintiff has not cited any patticular prejudicial effect, not does the Coutt find that this matter would be adversely impacted by setting aside the default. ì7ith respect to the fifth and sixth factots, there is no history of dilatory conduct on the part of Defendant, and less dtastic sanctions are available to remedy Defendant's tardiness. Thus, for good cause shown, and because the televant factots weigh in favot of setting aside the default, Defendant's motion should be gtanted. B. Plaintiffs Motion for Compensation and Motion fotJudgment Due to Default Plaintiff has fi,led a motion seeking default judgment against Defendant and to be compensated by Defendant for Plaintiffls pun ar,d suffering as a result of the alleged incident. (Docket Entry 15.1) Because the Coutt recoÍunends that entry of default against Defendant should be set aside in this matter, Plaintiffs motion should be denied. I The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed a supplement to this motion which the Court has consideted. (Jøe Docket F,;nty 1,7.) 5 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY RECQMMENDED that the Coutt GRANT Defendant's Motion to Set Aside E.rt y of Default (Docket Errtry 1,3) andthat the Cletk's entry of default (Docket Errry 11) be set aside. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMBNDED that the Coun DENIY Plaintiffs Motion fot Compensation and Motion fotJudgment Due to Default pocket Entry 15). \Tebster U November 17,2076 Durham, Noth Catohna 6 States Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
