United States of America v. Wise, et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Stay and denying 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response - The Wises shall file a substantive response to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (D.E. 13) on the ir Counterclaim on or before May 6, 2015. The Wises shall file a substantive response to the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 21) on or before May 20, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 04/17/2015. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-844-FL
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Eddie Wise and Dorothy Monroe-Wise,
Defendants.

On April 15, 2015, the court conducted a hearing to discuss Defendants Eddie Wise and
Dorothy Monroe-Wise’s Motion to Stay (D.E. 19) and Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response (D.E. 25). The Wises’ Motion to Stay asked the court to stay further proceedings and
permit discovery under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion for
Extension of Time sought additional time to respond without asserting good cause. The Wises,
however, did not appear at the hearing to address their motions. 1
Before ruling on these motions, a short synopsis will be useful. This case has two
branches – one emerging from the Government’s original Complaint (D.E. 1), and the other from
the Wises’ Counterclaim (D.E. 4). The Government’s Complaint sought to foreclose upon
certain of the Wises’ real and personal property under deeds of trust and other security
agreements held by the Government. It alleged that the Wises are in default on seven loans
administered by the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Specifically, it asserted that the Wises owe well over $500,000 on defaulted farm loans for which

1

On April 7, 2015, the Clerk’s Office sent a letter to the Wises’ regarding the April 15, 2015 hearing. The letter
was sent to the address the Wises provided to the court. A review of the docket immediately prior to the hearing did
not indicate that the letter had been returned to the Clerk’s Office as undeliverable.

they have only repaid approximately $9,000 over the last 15 years. (D.E. 14; Mem. in Opp. at
3).
The Wises, who are pro se in this matter, did not file an answer to the Government’s
Complaint.

Instead, they filed a Counterclaim against the United States and individual

government officials alleging various forms of discrimination. (D.E. 4). They also sought to
stay further proceedings (D.E. 7) – a request the court rejected as without basis in fact or law.
(District Judge Flanagan, Text Order, 01/16/2015).
On January 29, 2015, the Government sought to dismiss or, in the alternative, to receive
summary judgment on the Wises’ Counterclaim. (D.E. 13). That same day, the Wises were sent
a Roseboro Letter informing them that they must file a response to the Government’s Motion to
Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment on their Counterclaim on or before February 23, 2015.
(D.E. 15). The Wises failed to respond. Instead, they filed the Motion to Stay (D.E. 19) seeking
discovery under Rule 56(d) currently before the court. In their effort to satisfy Rule 56(d)’s
requirement of an affidavit stating specific facts the nonmovant requires to answer a motion for
summary judgment, the Wises submitted a declaration asserting various Department of
Agriculture regulations they believe were violated in the administration of their loans. (D.E. 18).
Meanwhile, on March 10, 2015, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
on its original action seeking foreclosure. (D.E. 21). The Wises were sent another Roseboro
Letter informing them that they must file a response to the Government’s motion by April 7,
2015. On April 3, 2015, the Wises filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional
20 days to respond to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the foreclosure
matter. (D.E. 25).

As of the date of this order, the Wises have failed to provide any substantive responses to
the Government’s Complaint or subsequent motions. The Wises’ only submissions to the court
have sought to delay proceedings. 2 They have neither observed court ordered deadlines nor
appeared at a hearing to discuss their own motions. While the court is mindful that the Wises are
pro se and deserve a certain measure of procedural leniency, the court is also moved by its duty
to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice. The court cannot countenance mere
dilatory tactics. Accordingly, the court hereby orders the following:
1.

The Wises’ Motion to Stay (D.E. 19) is DENIED. By failing to appear as directed

at the April 15, 2015 hearing, the Wises implicitly conceded the Government’s arguments in its
Response in Opposition (D.E. 20). Furthermore, the Wises’ Motion and the accompanying
Affidavit in Opposition (D.E. 18) do not “specifically identify what evidence discovery will turn
up and how the evidence will allow the party to oppose summary judgment” as required by Rule
56(d). Shanklin v. Seals, 2010 WL 2942649 at *5 (E.D.Va. July 27, 2010); see also Nguyen v.
CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). The Wises’ Affidavit cobbles together various
administrative regulations that they suggest were violated in their case. The connection between
these regulations and the task of responding to the Government’s motion, however, is
inscrutable.
2.

The Wises’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (D.E. 25) is DENIED.

The dates specified below shall govern the remaining response deadlines for the Government’s
dispositive motions.

2

The court also notes the Government’s contention that the Wises have engaged in similar dilatory actions in other
cases before this court and had their efforts denied or dismissed. See (D.E. 20; Gov. Resp. at 1 n. 1).

3.

The Wises shall file a substantive response to the Government’s Motion to

Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (D.E. 13) on their Counterclaim on or
before May 6, 2015.
4.

The Wises shall file a substantive response to the Government’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (D.E. 21) on or before May 20, 2015.

Dated: April 17, 2015.

ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE