LINDSAY v. GLICK et al, No. 1:2015cv00596 - Document 66 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 04/22/2016; that Plaintiff's Motion (Docket Entry 32 ) be GRANTED. Additionally, the Court finds that, unless justice requires other wise, no amended or supplemental pleadings will be allowed going forward. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion entitled "Motion for Access to Photocopying and Notary Services" (Docket Entry 26 ) and Plaintiff's motio n entitled "Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Counsel (D.E. 3 ) and Memorandum of Law in Support" (Docket Entry 50 ) are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (Docket Entries 33 , 45 , 46 ) be DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Docket Entry 53 ) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have up to and including May 18, 2016, to respond to P laintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Admissions and Second Request for Production of Documents. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena (Docket Entry 48 ) by May 18, 2016. (Garland, Leah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LINDSAY v. GLICK et al Doc. 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA THE,ODUS LINDS,A.Y, JR., Plaintiff, v WILLIAM GLICK, III, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:15CV596 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Theodus Lindsay,Jt.'s and Defendants IØilliam Glick, III, Mr. Btandhotst, Ms. Barringer, Cordelia McBride, Ebony Ratlif,f, Mr. Hildreth, Mr. Huneycutt, Ms. Robinson, Mr. Lookabill, Ms. Btuton, Mr. Parsons, Mt. Hargrave, Mr. Bradford, Macte Crider, Victor Locklear, and Monica Bond's several motions including: Plaintiffs motion entitled "Motion for Access to Photocopying and Notary Services" (Docket Entry 26),Plaint:ffs motion entitled "Motion to mend and Supplement Complaints" (Docket Entry 32; see øl¡oDocket Entry 33), Plaintiffs motion entitled "Motion to Enter Plaintiffs Q).E. 32) Cera[tcate of chievement for nger Management, Notth Caroltna Department of Public Safety Alcoholism Chemical Dependency Ptograms, Certificate of Achievement Thinking for a Chanqe, as Exhibits A and Declaration of Theodus Lindsay Jr., and Tyrone Bunch as Exhibits B into Court Records" (Docket Entry 45), Plaintiffs Motion entitled "Motion to enter Plaintiffs Exhibits Verified Complaint (D.E. 2) into Court Record" Q)ocket Entty 46), Plaintiffs Motion for Subpoena (Docket Entry 48), Plaintiffs Motion entitled "PlaintifPs Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Counsel (D.E. 1, Dockets.Justia.com 3) and Memorandum of Law in Suppott" (Docket Entty 50), and Defendants' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery pocket Entry 53). These matters are ripe for disposition. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 22, 201.5, Plaintiff, ^ pro se prisoner, fìled a complaint asserting that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs medical needs by denying Plaintiff access to mental health treatment and protective custody. Plaintiff was imprisoned in June 2014. (Id. at 6.) (See generalþ Complaint, DocketBntty 2.) In ,{.ugust 2014, Plaintiff alleges that he requested to participate in a mental health psychological rehabilitative treaffnent progtam for his Post Traumatic Sttess Disorder ("PTSD") resulting from his expetience in the military Qd.) Platntd:ff alleges that he was denied access to the program and was assigned to the "Road Squad" for a work assignment. (Id.) Plaintiff states that on several occasions he requested to be removed from the Road Squad assignment and to be admitted to the mental health psychological rehabilitative treatment program. Qd. at 6-9.) On October 21,,201,4, Plaintiff states that he was assaulted on the Road Squad bus. Qd. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that a prison staff member failed to do anything about the altetcation. (Id.) Subsequently, Plaintiff was assaulted agaín on Road Squad duty on Novembet 1,3,201,4. (Id. at1,0.) As a result of this second altercation, Plaintiff was moved to testrictive housing. (Id.) OnJuly 22,201.5, Plaintiff filed his complaint. On November 20,201,5, Defendants filed an answer. (Answer, Docket E.rt"y 24.) Plztnttff thereafter filed a motion to amend the complaint (Docket Entry 25) which the Court gtanted. (Docket F,nty 29.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against two additional defendants, Monica Bond, Chief Disciplinary Officer, and Victot 2 Locklear, a Disciplinary Hearing Officet. (Docket Entry 25.) Plaintiff asserts that both violated his Due Process rights. (1/.) II. A. DISCUSSION MotionforAcces¡ to Photocopliagand Notary Service¡ In Plaintiffls motion entided "Motion for Services" (Docket Entry 26), he contends that photocopying and notaLry services, Access if to Photocopying and Notary he is not able to obtain access to Defendants will have anunfair advantage because Plaintiff is "incarcerated, pro se, indigent, and cannot properly litigate his case." (Id. at 6.) In Boands u. Smith, the Supreme Court held that an inmate is entitled to "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1,977); see also Hadqeth u. Figin¡ 584 F.2d 1,345, 1,347 (4th Cir. 1978). Subsequently, in l-¿wi¡ u. Casell, the Supreme Coutt clarified the Boand¡ decision by concluding that a deprivation of an inmate's tight of access to the courts is only actionable when the inmate is able to demonstrate actual injury as a tesult. 518 U.S. 343,349 (1996). Additionally, the Court furthet teasoned that the Constitution only requires that inmates be ptovided with the tools needed to "attack their sentences, directly confinement." Id. lawsuits." Kelþ u. ^t355. or collaterally, and to challenge the conditions of their Thus, "prisoners do not have a dght to free photcicopies for use in York Cry. Prison, 325 F. App'r 144, 1,45 (3d Cir. 2009); McRauion u. Solomon, No. 5:13-CT-3133-FL,201,4 WL 5810311, at x3 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7,201,4) (finding that "there is no constitutional right to access to free photocopies'); ll/alker u. Hardinger, No. CIV.A. JtrM- 1.5-2583,2015 \)7L 5199594, ú x2 (D. Md. Sept. 4, 201,5) (finding that the plaintiff did "not have an unfetteted constitutional rþht to free copy work in the absence of showing that a J defendants'tefusal to copy his legal work prevented him from meeting deadlines, otherwise prejudiced him in any pending litigation, ot actually impeded his access to the courts'). Hete, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has suffeted an injury. Plaintiff does not allege that he has been denied access to the facility's photocopy ot notaly services. Plaintiff merely speculates that he will be at a disadv antlage if this does happen. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff has been provided an adequate opportunity to present his claim. Plaintiff has fìled and served several motions to the clerk of court and Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff stated that his motion to amend his complaint was notarized (Docket Entry 46 at1), thus indicating that Plaintiff does have access to notary services. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that he has suffered an acttal injury, his motion is denied. B. Motion¡ to Amend Amended Conplaint Plaintiff filed two motions to amend his Amended Complaint (Docket Entries 32,33); the issue is whether Plaintiffs motions are amendments to the Amended Complaint or supplemental pleadings.l The first motion contains the proposed changes to the Amended Complaint, while the second motion is the request for leave to admit the proposed changes. These motions could have been filed together as one motion. (See generuilþ Docket Entdes 32, 33). Plaintiffs first motion entitled "Motion to Amend and Supplement Complaints" (Docket Etttty 32) is cleatly a supplemental pleading.2 i'Parties and courts occasionally confuse I Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs two motions to amend his Amended Complaint reveal that there is coufusion regatding which Amended Complaint has previously been granted. In their Response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs ,\mended Complaint (Docket Etrtry 25) should be denied because Plaintiffs new claim is futile. (Response 7-2, Docket Entry 36.) However, Plaintiffs Motion to ^t hzd aheady been ,\mend the Complaint (Docket Entry 25) granted by the Court rendering the rgument moot. (Docket F,nluy 29.) 2 In their Response, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs motions to amend his A.mended Complaint 4 supplemental pleadings with amended pleadings and mislabeling is common. However, these misnomers are not of any significance and do not prevent the court from considering to amend or supplement under the proper poftion of Rule 1.5." See a motion Aþert u. PvleyNo. CIV.,A,. H-04-CV-3774,2009 \XT, 1226762, at x3 (S.D. Tex. -A.pt. 30, 2009) (citing 6A Charles A.lan Wrþht et a/.,Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1504, at1.84 Qd ed.1,990)). "Rule 15(d) allows patties, by leave occurrences of court, to supplement their pleadings to set fofth 'transactions or or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented."' A¡hton u. Ciry of Contvrd, N.C., 337 tr. Snpp. 2d735,740 (À4.D.N.C. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)). The Fourth Circuit has reasoned that the standard used fot ruling on a motion to amend or on a motion to supplement are neady identical. F'.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. 2002). F-ranks u. P.r0r,31.3 In both situations, leave should be freely granted, and only denied where good reason exists such as prejudice to Defendants. Id. Hete, Plaintiffs motion entitled "Motion to ,{,mend and Supplement Complaints" (Docket Ent"y 32) does not contain new claims. In the document, Plaintiff states that Mr. Spruill, a unit managet, "provided assistance on January 21, 201.5 at fPlaintiffs disciplinary teheating]." (A-. Compl. at 5, Docket F,ntry 32.) Plaintiff contends that Mr. Spruill told Plaintiff that his disciplinary hearing was "jacked-rp." (Id. at 5-6.) Thus, because Plaintiffs motion does not contain new claims but simply supports his existing claims, the Court will should be denied because they were filed after court issued deadline. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs ftst motion is a supplement and the second motion is simply a request for leave to file an -{mended Complaint, the court issued deadline barring both parties from amending the pleadings after Jawary 11,,2016, does not apply. 5 construe Plaintiffs motion as a supplement to his Amended Complaint.3 ,{.dditionally, the Court notes Defendants' assertion that "lawsuits are not a constantly moving targetwith new claims and new defendants to be added whenever the Plaintiff decides he should do so." (Itesponse at 1,-2, Docket Entry 36.) Defendants should be able to adequately defend against claims in an effìcient mannet. At this point, Plaintiff has been given m^ny oppottunities to amend or supplement his original Complaint. Thus, unless justice requires otherwise, no additional amended or supplemental pleadings will be allowed.a C. Mo tion þr Re con¡ideration of Appoin tm enî of Coanse / Plaintiff also fìled a Motion for Reconsideration of his request for appointment of counsel. The Court previously issued an order denying Plaintiffs fìrst motion to appoint counsel. @ocket Entry 4.) In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that the Court should appoint counsel because he does not have access to a law hbrary, he only has a layman's knowledge of the law, and being a prisoner, he does not have the ability to investigate the facts of his case. (Docket Entty 50 at 5, 10-16.) The issues highlighted by Plaintiff corìcern "the effect of fPlaintiffs] imprisonment on his ability to litigate his case [and] are insuffìciently'exceptional' to merit appointment of counsel" because they are cofiunon issues faced by most pro prisoners. Reeues u. se Ransom,No. 1:10CV56,201.1WL45491.44,at*8 (À4.D.N.C. Sept. 29,201,1) Plaintiff also filed a second motion entitled "Motion to Amend Complaints" onJanuary 1,9,201,6. (Docket Entry 33.) ,{,s explained above, Plaintiffs frst motion (Docket enty 32) is actually a supplement to the mended Complaint. The Second motion is simply request for leave to fi.le a new r\mended Complaint. Thus, because there is not a new proposed Amended Complaint, the second motion (tequesting leave to amend the Amended Complaint) should be denied as moot. 3 a Based upon the ruling set forth herein, the Court notes that 30,32) will be construed together as Plaintiffls complaint. (-¡ Plaintiffs pleadings (Docket Entties 2, (ciangJoe u. F-underbar,ê, No. 8:06-119-GR-BHH, 2006 WL 270701,'1., at*'1. Q).S.C. Sept.18, 2006); Zunigø u. Perry, No. 1:15CV35, 2015 WL 5159299, at *7 (À4.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2015) (concluding that "the matters cited by the petitioner in his pleadings reflect conditions faced by virtually all prisoner litigants and thus, by definition, do nor quali$r as circumstances of the sort that w^n^nt appointment of counsel"). Furthermore, the absence of alaw library not yield "exceptional circumstances justifiring appointment of counsel." No. 3:13-CV-590-FDW, 201,4 Dauidson u. Daui¡ WL 2696573, at *4 CX/.D.N.C. June 13, 201,4); No. 1:14-CV-98-F'DW,201,4WL5243338,at *6 CX/.D.N.C. Oct. does Ross u. Conner, 1,5,201,4) (finding thatwhile the plaintiff argued he did not have access to a law libtary, only had alayman's knowledge of the law, and that his case was complex, the Plaintiff did not show that exceptional circumstances justified appointment attorney of counsel). Additionally, Plaintiff contends that an is needed to handle the infotmation that he is not allowed to considerable amount see of discovery and confidential for security reasons. Similady, these reasons do not establish exceptional circumstances requiring appointment of counsel. See Gralt u. Cogdell,No. 2:14-CY-0473 KJN P,201,4WL2567409,at*3 (8.D. CaLJune 6,201,4) (finding the plaintiffs argument that an attorney was needed to handle considerable discovery and confìdential documents was unpersuasive because the plaintiff did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel). Plaintiff also contends that this case is one of exraordinary circumstances because it is factually and legally complex, the case has merit, and Plaintiff does not have the capacity to present his claims. pocket Entry 50 at 8-9, 12,21-25.) Although Plaintiff has amended and supplemented his Complaint since the frst Motion for,tppointment of Counsel, at this time, 7 the Court fìnds that Plaintiffs case is not one that involves exceptional circumstances requfuing counsel to be appointed. Miller u. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962,966 (4th Cir. 1,987). Plaintiff s new claims ^re not complex. Moreover, his filings show that he has the capacity to ptovide the relevant facts, make arguments and use cases to support his assettions. Il/i/¡on u. Rabbar,No. 1,:1,4CY622,201.5WL1,97368,at*2 O{.D.N.C. Jan.14,201,5) ("Plaintiffs submissions show that he is capable of representing himself in this matter. \X/hile, as he asserts, his confìnement may present some challenges in litigating his claims, he has not demonstrated that he is unable to pursue his claims without counsel"); Graues u. Sellars, No. 1:12CV196, 2013WL942328, at x1 (À4.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2013) (finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that exceptional in his case tequired circumstances counsel to be appointed because the plaintiff demonsttated the ability to fìle ptoper documents timely and the court futher noted that the nature of the case was not complex). Additionally, Plaintiff contends that counsel should be appointed because his account of the circumstances creating "^ in this case are directly in conflict with Defendants' position thereby credibility contest" between the parties. (Docket Er,try 50 ^t 16-17.) "Nevefiheless, conflicting testimony and factual disputes are not'exceptional circumstances' that entitle a plaintiff to appointed counsel." 201,2 ìVL 2499003, ^t See Garda u. Snith, No. 10CV1187 AJB RBB, *5 (S.D. CaL June 27, 201,2). Thus, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsidetation is denied. D. Motion¡ to Enter Exhibit¡ into the Court Record Plaintiffs two motions to submit certain exhibits into the coutt tecotd are denied moot. (Docket Enuies as 45, 46.) The fìtst motion corìcerns the documents attached to 8 Plaintiffs motion entitled "Motion to '\mend and Supplement Complaints." (Docket E.rtry 32.) Plain:d:ff attached exhibits showing that he took anget management and other programs to bettet himself. (Am. Compl. at7-9,Docket E.,tty 32.) ,{,dditionally, Plaintiff also attached two affidavits to suppott his claim that a unit manager believed his hearing was "jacked ,rp." Qd. at 10-13.) Similady, Plaintiffs second motion to enter exhibits into evidence pertains to exhibits that were attached to the original complaint. Both of PlaintifPs motions are denied as moot because the documents are aheady a pafi of the court record. See l-,emarr u. Doe,No. CIV.A. L-05-1,67,2006 WL 763617, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23,2006) (reasoning that the plaintiff did not have to fìle a separate motion to enter exhibits into evidence because appending exhibits to the complaint is sufficient to enter the exhibits into the record). E. MotionsþrExtension ofTime to Comþlete Discouerl Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery pocket Etttty 53) is granted. Defendants shall have up to and including May 18, 2016, to respond to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatoties and Request fot dmissions and Second Request for Production of Documents. F-. Motioru to Sabpoena Prison and Medital Rewrds Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Subpoena. (Docket Entry 48.) In this motion Plaintiff seeks all of his medical and prison tecords, prison policy documents, and much more from John Herting, Supetintendent of Bertie Corectional Institution and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Division of Pdsons. The Court otders that Defendants respond to this motion before ding on this motion. 9 III. CONCLUSION Fot the reasons stated herein, PlaintifPs motion entitled "Motion to ,tmend and Supplement Complaints" (Docket Entry 32), will be construed as a supplement to Plaintiffs complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (Docket Entry GRANTED. ,{dditionally, the Court finds that, unless justice requires 3)be otherwise, no amended or supplemental pleadings will be allowed going forward. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion entitled "Motion for,{.ccess to Photocopying and Notary Services" (Docket Entty 26) and Plaintiffs motion entitled "Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Counsel (D.8. 3) and Memorandum of Law in Support" (Docket Entty 50) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED be DENIED as that Plaintiffs motions (Docket Entries 33,45,46) moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Q)ocket Entry 53) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have up to and including May 18, 201,6, to respond to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interogatories and Request for ,\dmissions and Second Request for Production of Documents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants respond to Plaintifls Motion for Subpoena Q)ocket Entry a8) by May 18, 201,6. ,\pril ?zorc ,-l stef tates Magistrate Judge oe Uni 10 e
]]>
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.
