Chambers v. Ishee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:23-cv-00005-MR
PATRICK J. CHAMBERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
TODD ISHEE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se Motions for
Extension of Time [Docs. 21, 24], and “Objection Initial Review/ Amended
Complaint/ Stating Claim which Relief can be Granted” [Docs. 22].1
The incarcerated pro se Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that multiple Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a serious medical need at the Alexander Correctional Institution
on September 30, 2021.2 On April 17, 2023, the Court entered an Order
1 The attachments to the Plaintiff’s second Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 24-1] are
duplicative of his previous filings [Docs. 21, 22] and will be disregarded. The Plaintiff is
cautioned that future duplicative or otherwise abusive filings may be stricken without
further notice.
2 The Plaintiff’s address of record is at the Pasquotank Correctional Institution. However,
it appears that he is now being housed at the Bertie Correctional Institution. See
https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=123489
8&searchOffenderId=1234898&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresu
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 25 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 4

2
finding that the Plaintiff had stated plausible deliberate indifference claims
against Defendants Lisa Huffman and Kelly A. Towery (A.K.A. Kelly A.
Reynolds);3 the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. [Doc.
9]. The Plaintiff filed an “Objection” in which he argued that the Complaint
should have been allowed to pass initial review against all Defendants, and
in which he attempted to amend the Complaint in a piecemeal fashion. [Doc.
14]. On June 20, 2023, the Court denied the “Objection,” but granted the
Plaintiff 30 days in which to file a superseding Amended Complaint. [Doc.
17]. He was cautioned that “[p]iecemeal amendment will not be allowed.” [Id.
at 3].
On August 4, 2023,4 the Plaintiff filed the instant Motions for Extension
of Time and “Objection … Amended Complaint.” [Docs. 21, 22, 24]. The
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time in which to amend his Complaint because
he has had some difficulty with mail and obtaining paper and carbon paper.
lts&listpage=1 (last accessed Aug. 15, 2023); Fed. R. Evid. 201. The Plaintiff is required
to promptly change his address with the Court by filing a Notice of Change of Address.
[See Doc. 3 at ¶ 3 (Order of Instructions)]. Failure to do so may result in this action’s
dismissal for lack of prosecution.
3 Defendant Huffman waived service and, on August 8, 2023, filed an Answer. [See Docs.
15, 23]. Service on Defendant Towery is underway. [See Docs. 19-20].
4 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule);
Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying prisoner
mailbox rule to § 1983 case).
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 25 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 4

3
[Docs. 21, 24]. In the “Objection Initial Review/ Amended Complaint…,” the
Plaintiff again expresses his disagreement with the Order on initial review,
and attempts to amend the Complaint in a piecemeal fashion. [Docs. 22].
His disagreement is insufficient to support any relief, and the piecemeal
amendment will not be allowed, for the reasons explained previously. [See
Doc. 17]. Accordingly, the Objection is denied and the piecemeal Amended
Complaint is dismissed.5 However, the Plaintiff’s Motions for an extension
of time to amend are granted. The Plaintiff is again advised that any Second
Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural
requirements and will supersede his prior filings. Piecemeal amendment will
not be allowed. Should the Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint in
accordance with this Order, the matter will proceed only on the claims
previously identified by the Court [see Doc. 9].
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s “Objection Initial Review/ Amended Complaint/
Stating Claim which Relief can be Granted” [Doc. 22] is
DISMISSED AND DENIED.
5 The Plaintiff is reminded that any requests directed to the Court must be presented in
“Motions.” Letters and other miscellaneous filings will not be answered in future. [See
Doc. 3 at ¶ 5 (Order of Instructions)].
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 25 Filed 08/21/23 Page 3 of 4

4
2. The Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time [Docs. 21, 24] are
GRANTED.
3. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff
fails to amend the Complaint in the instant case in accordance
with this Order and within the time limit set by the Court, this
action will proceed only on the claims previously identified by the
Court [see Doc. 9].
The Clerk is respectfully requested to mail the Plaintiff a blank prisoner
complaint form and a copy of this Order at his address of record as well as
to him at the Bertie Correctional Institution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 18, 2023
Case 5:23-cv-00005-MR Document 25 Filed 08/21/23 Page 4 of 4