Littleton v. Harkleroad et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Subpoena for Medical Records for Inmate William Littleton from Marion/McDowell Hospital; denying 41 Motion for Subpoena for Medical Records for Inmate William Littleton from Catawba County Ho spitaldenying 42 Motion to Compel; denying 49 Motion for Declaration for Entry of Default; denying 51 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/4/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv265-RJC
WILLIAM ANDREW LITTLETON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SID HARKLEROAD, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s two Motions for Subpoena of Medical
Records from Marion/McDowell Hospital and Catawba County Hospital, (Doc. Nos. 40; 41),
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 42), Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaration of
Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 49), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 51).
Pro se Plaintiff William Littleton is a North Carolina state court inmate currently
incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution. In this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at Marion Correctional Facility he was
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,
both in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed as to
all Defendants except for Randy Teague, who at all relevant times was the Assistant
Superintendent at Marion Correctional. Thus, Teague is the sole remaining Defendant in this
action.
First, as to Plaintiff’s motions for subpoena of medical records and his motion to compel,
the Court notes that on May 17, 2013, the Court entered its Pretrial Order and Case Management
1

Plan, which expressly stated that the discovery period was to end on September 15, 2013.
Plaintiff filed no motions with this Court between the issuance of the Pretrial Order and Case
Management Plan and when he filed his two motions for subpoena of medical records. The
motions for subpoena of records and the motion to compel were all stamp-filed in this Court on
September 24, 2013. Under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner’s filing is deemed filed on the
date it is actually delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988). Plaintiff does not state when he placed the motions in the prison system for mailing, but
Plaintiff signed and dated all three motions, and all three motions were dated after the discovery
period had already ended, with the earliest date being September 17, 2013. The postmark on the
envelopes for all three motions is September 23, 2013. Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the prison
mailbox rule, he filed these motions after the discovery period had already ended. Because the
time for discovery had ended when Plaintiff filed his motions for subpoena of medical records
and his motion to compel, and because Plaintiff had ample time in which to file these motions
while the discovery period was still open, the Court will deny as untimely Plaintiff’s two motions
for subpoenas and his motion to compel discovery.1
Next, as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and his Motion for Default Judgment,
the Court denies both motions because the Court has dismissed all Defendants in this matter
except for Defendant Randy Teague, and Teague has appeared in the case and has filed a motion
for summary judgment.

1

Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery of medical records on August 15, 2012, which the Court
denied because discovery had not commenced.
2

IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending motions, (Doc. Nos. 40; 41;
42; 49; 51), are all DENIED.

3