Hemphill v. Huntley et al

Filing 92

ORDER: Plaintiff's 88 Motion for Reconsideration & Request for "Original Documents Back" and 89 Motion for Extension of Time & Motion for Re-View of Order (Objection To) Filed "10-21-24" are GRANTE D IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in this Order. The Plaintiff shall have until December 20, 2024 to file a superseding dispositive motion and/or a supplemental response to the BCJ Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 11/25/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-156-KDB

SCOTT DEVON HEMPHILL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREG HUNTLEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se “Motion for Reconsideration
& Request for ‘Original Documents Back’” [Doc. 88] and “Motion for Extension of Time &
Motion for Re-View of Order (Objection To) Filed ‘10-21-24’” [Doc. 89].
The incarcerated Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The
Complaint passed initial review against several employees at the Burke County Jail (“BCJ
Defendants”) and one employee of the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections (“DAC
Defendant”). [Docs. 1, 12].
On July 10, 2024, the BCJ Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.2 [Doc. 59].
The Plaintiff previously sought an extension of the deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and he requested copies of original documents that he had previously filed with the
Court. [See Doc. 79]. The Court granted the extension of time but denied the request for
documents as moot, because the BCJ Defendants represented that they had mailed the same to the

1

The Plaintiff initially filed this case in the Eastern District of North Carolina; it was transferred to this Court where
venue lies. [Doc. 8].
2

The NCDAC Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 20, 2024. [Doc. 85].

Plaintiff. [See Doc. 80, 82]. The Plaintiff now states that the Defendants’ representation is untrue
and that he never received the documents. He asks for the Defendants to be “penalized for perjury,”
for a copy of the documents, and for another extension of time in which to respond to the BCJ
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 88 at 3; Doc. 89]. The BCJ Defendants have
filed a Response explaining that counsel recently discovered that the Plaintiff did not receive the
relevant documents until November 20, 2024, and that the BCJ Defendants do not object to an
extension of the Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to their Motion for Summary Judgment.3 [Doc. 91].
The Plaintiff’s Motions will be granted insofar as he will be granted an extension of time
to respond to the BCJ Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. His requests that the
Defendants be “penalized,” and for the Court to provide him with copies of the documents at issue
are denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration &
Request for ‘Original Documents Back’” [Doc. 88] and “Motion for Extension of Time & Motion
for Re-View of Order (Objection To) Filed ‘10-21-24’” [Doc. 89] are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as stated in this Order.
The Plaintiff shall have until December 20, 2024 to file a superseding dispositive motion
and/or a supplemental response to the BCJ Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 25, 2024

3

The Court has determined that it need not await a response from the NCDAC Defendant, or a reply from the Plaintiff,
in order to resolve these matters.

2