Foster v. Fisher et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying as moot 12 Motion for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment; denying without prejudice 13 Motion for Leave to Amend; denying 14 Motion to allow Pro Se Electronic Filings, however the Court will grant the Plaintiff the right to receive notice via e-mail whenever a pleading or other paper is filed electronically in this matter. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 01/12/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00292-MR-DSC

JENNIFER NICOLE FOSTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
AMANDA FISHER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Request for Entry
of Default/Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Jack Van
Duncan [Doc. 12]; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend [Doc. 13]; and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Pro Se Electronic Filing [Doc. 14].
On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this
action against Defendants Amanda Fisher and Jack Van Duncan, asserting
claims for violation of her civil rights. [Doc. 1]. On December 19, 2014, the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the entry of default against Defendant Van
Duncan for failing to appear or otherwise answer the Complaint.1 [Doc. 12].
On December 22, 2014, counsel for Defendant Van Duncan filed a notice

1

The Clerk’s Office did not docket the Plaintiff’s motion until December 23, 2014.

of appearance and a motion for an extension of time to answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint. [Docs. 9, 10]. The Magistrate Judge
granted Defendant Van Duncan’s motion [Doc. 11], and on December 31,
2014, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In light of the fact that Defendant Van
Duncan has now appeared in this action and responded to the Complaint,
the Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of default is moot and is therefore denied.
On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. [Doc. 13]. The Plaintiff did not support her motion
with a brief as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(C), nor did she provide the
Court with a copy of her proposed amended pleading. For these reasons,
the Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. The Court further notes,
however, that the Plaintiff has the right to amend her complaint once as a
matter of course within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Both
Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss. [Docs. 15, 18]. Thus, at
least for a limited period of time, the Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint without seeking further leave of Court.
2

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks permission to use electronic filing in this
matter.

Parties who are proceeding pro se are not permitted to file

documents electronically. See Administrative Procedures Governing Filing
and Service by Electronic Means, at 3 (W.D.N.C., rev. Jan. 1, 2012). In the
exercise of its discretion, however, the Court will grant the Plaintiff the right
to receive notice via e-mail whenever a pleading or other paper is filed
electronically in this matter. Id.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default/Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Jack Van Duncan [Doc. 12] is DENIED AS
MOOT;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend [Doc. 13] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Pro Se Electronic Filing [Doc. 14] is

DENIED; however, the Court will grant the Plaintiff the right to receive
notice via e-mail whenever a pleading or other paper is filed electronically
in this matter. Should the Plaintiff elect to receive such notifications, the
Plaintiff shall provide her e-mail address to the Clerk’s Office.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 12, 2015

4