Gabbidon v. Wilson et al, No. 1:2019cv00828 - Document 48 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS plaintiff's 45 motion to exceed the 20-page limit and DENIES defendant United States' 43 motion to strike. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/27/2020. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Gabbidon v. Wilson et al Doc. 48 Case 1:19-cv-00828 Document 48 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 544 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD PAULETTE GABBIDON, a.k.a. PAULETTE HIBBERT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00828 DAVID R. WILSON, FPC ALDERSON; JERROD R. GRIMES, FPC ALDERSON; LIEUTENANT WORKMAN, FPC ALDERSON; GINA HONAKER, FPC ALDERSON; MARK S. INCH, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; and, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendant United States of America’s motion to strike plaintiff’s Response to Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 42), because plaintiff’s response exceeded the 20-page limitation under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff’s response at issue was 26 pages in length and was not accompanied by a motion to exceed the page limitation showing good cause for the memorandum’s length. (See ECF No. 42.) In response to the United States’ motion to strike, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to exceed the 20-page limit. (ECF No. 45.) In her motion, plaintiff states that she had good cause to exceed the 20-page limit because she needed the additional pages to properly and completely detail the relevant history and basis for her claims in this action. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00828 Document 48 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 545 The court has discretion to strike any memorandum that “is not submitted as required by [Rule 7.1].” L.R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2); see also Hallman-Warner v. Bluefield State Coll., 2018 WL 1309748, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1309726, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 13, 2018) (Faber, J.), appeal dismissed, 732 F. App’x 247, 248 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). “Motions to exceed the page limitation will be denied absent a showing of good cause.” Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). L.R. Here, the court finds that good cause exists to exceed the 20-page limit. However, the court admonishes plaintiff’s counsel for not requesting leave to file in exceedance of the page limitation prior to filing the 26-page motion, and reminds counsel that filings in excess of 20 pages are disfavored. For good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion to exceed the 20page limit, (ECF No. 45), is GRANTED, and defendant United States’ motion to strike, (ECF No. 43), is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2

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.