Lanier v. Henderson County Detention Center

Filing 58

ORDER granting 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Add Supplemental Defendants, and Brian Helton and Christy Adams shall be added as defendants in this action; denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Discovery; and denying 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/29/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15-cv-262-FDW
RICARDO EDWIN LANIER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION
)
CENTER, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to
Add Supplemental Defendants, (Doc. No. 45), on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Discovery,
(Doc. No. 50), and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery, (Doc. No. 51).
Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Edwin Lanier is a North Carolina prisoner incarcerated at Bertie
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff filed this action on November 25, 2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that while he was incarcerated as a pre-trial
detainee at Henderson County Detention Center (“the jail”), jail officials failed to protect him
from an assault by two other inmates at the jail on October 20, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that some
of the named Defendants and other unnamed “control booth officers” failed to intervene to stop
the attack. Plaintiff was allowed to conduct limited discovery to determine the names of the
control booth officers working at the time of the incident. Plaintiff now seeks to add Brian
Helton and Christy Adams as Defendants, and he alleges that these two individuals failed to
intervene during the incident. Helton and Adams oppose the motion, contending that the
amendment would be futile.
1

The Court will allow Plaintiff to add Helton and Adams as Defendants, as the Court finds
that allowing the amendment would not be futile. Construing the allegations in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges in the Complaint that these two officers were
in the control booth at the time of the assault and would have been able to see the assault, but
failed to intervene. Thus, Brian Helton and Christy Adams are to be added as Defendants in this
action.
Next, Plaintiff’s motions for discovery will be denied as premature because discovery has
not commenced in this action. Plaintiff is advised that discovery does not commence until after
Defendants have been served and answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint, and after
the Court has entered a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan in this matter setting forth
deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. Moreover, once discovery commences,
Plaintiff must seek discovery from Defendants directly rather than filing motions with the Court.
The Court will enter a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan forthwith.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Discovery, (Doc. No. 50), and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Discovery, (Doc. No. 51), are DENIED as premature.
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Supplemental Defendants, (Doc. No.
45), is GRANTED, and Brian Helton and Christy Adams shall be added as
Defendants in this action. The Clerk shall mail Plaintiff summons forms for Plaintiff
to fill out so that service may be made as to these two Defendants by the U.S.
Marshal.

2

3