McNeill v. Herring et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 85 Motion for Sanctions; denying 85 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 73 MOTION in Limine . FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall CALENDAR A TELEPHONIC HEARING for December 29, 2021, at 2 pm. Defendants shall MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS for Plaintiff to be present at the telephonic hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 12/14/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00189-GCM
JAMES C. MCNEILL,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MICHAEL D. HINSON,
FNU SIMMONS,
WILLIAM HORNE,
FNU KINNEY,
FNU ALLEN,
THOMAS B. TURGEON,
Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Sanctions and
Request for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 85). In the motion, Plaintiff James McNeill makes
various complaints about his treatment by prison officials which are unrelated to the present action.
McNeill states that prison officials previously impeded his access to legal materials, but adds that
the issue improved after this Court’s previous order. See ECF No. 82. No further intervention by
the Court is warranted, and the motion for sanctions will be denied.1
The Court now turns to McNeill’s claim that prison officials failed to send a request for
subpoenas for trial witnesses. Trial is now a month away, and the Court is disinclined to continue
it once again. Instead, a telephonic hearing will be convened for McNeill to make his requests for
subpoenas. In order for the Court to issue subpoenas, the Plaintiff must (1) provide adequate

To that extent that McNeill seeks additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion in limine, it
will be denied. McNeill will have the opportunity to argue the motion in person before the trial
begins.
1

Case 3:18-cv-00189-GCM Document 86 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2

information about each witness, such that the Court may conclude that the subpoenas are being
issued for relevant and permissible purposes; (2) identify those witnesses by name and address so
that they can be located and served; and (3) demonstrate that he can pay the costs of securing those
witnesses’ attendance at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1) (requiring fees and mileage for the
issuance of subpoenas); 28 U.S.C. § 1821(f) (witness fees do not apply to incarcerated witnesses);
Pickens v. Lewis, No. 1:15-cv-275-FDW, 2017 WL 2198342, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May 18, 2017)
(“Ordinarily, the plaintiff must bear the costs of his litigation . . . even in pro se cases.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The Motion for Sanctions and Request for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 85) is
DENIED.
2. The Clerk shall CALENDAR A TELEPHONIC HEARING for December 29, 2021,
at 2 pm.
3. Defendants shall MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS for Plaintiff to be
present at the telephonic hearing.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 14, 2021

2
Case 3:18-cv-00189-GCM Document 86 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2