Pickens v. Hendricks et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00030-MR
BRANDON PICKENS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
STEVEN HENDRICKS, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Lambert, Lewis, and
May’s Motion for Sanctions and a Protective Order [Doc. 191] and Ex Parte
Motion to File Exhibits 1 and 2 in Support of Motion for Sanctions and
Protective Order Under Seal [Doc. 194].
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint passed initial review on several § 1983
claims and the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over North Carolina
law claims. [Doc. 13]. Discovery closed on December 13, 2023, and
dispositive motions are due by January 17, 2024. [Doc. 190].
The moving Defendants seek the entry of a protective order and the
imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff because he has sent several
highly inappropriate, abusive, and harassing letters to defense counsel,
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 236 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 5

2
Cameron E. Nieters, two of which have been provided to the Court ex parte.1
The Plaintiff has not responded and the time to do so has expired.
“Federal courts have long recognized their inherent power to sanction
litigants for misbehavior in the judicial process.” White v. Raymark Indus.,
Inc., 783 F.2d 1175, 1177 (4th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “involuntary dismissals are appropriate
when ‘the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or a court order.’” Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625
(4th Cir. 2019), as amended (June 10, 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b))
(brackets omitted). Pro se litigants are subject to the same sanctions as
attorneys. White v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 1175, 1177 (4th Cir.
1986) (“There is no distinction between attorney and litigant abuses of the
judicial process when applying the inherent power of the federal courts to
penalize those responsible for the wrongful conduct.”).
The Court easily concludes that the Plaintiff’s outrageous conduct
towards counsel warrants the entry of a Protective Order and the imposition
of sanctions. The Court has carefully considered the Plaintiff’s behavior, the
circumstances of the case, and the available means of protecting counsel
1 The Motion for Protective Order refers to Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, but only Exhibits 1 and 2
have been provided to the Court. [See Doc. 191].
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 236 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 5

3
from further harassment. The Court concludes that the only meaningful
remedy in this case is to prohibit the Plaintiff from any further communication
with Ms. Nieters, outside that which is strictly necessary to litigate this action,
for instance, by serving her by mail with copies of his pleadings, and by
responding to any questions she may pose in a deposition.
The Plaintiff will, therefore, be ordered not to communicate with Ms.
Nieters in any way, other than that which is strictly required to litigate the
case.2 The Plaintiff is cautioned that any future harassing, abusive, or
otherwise inappropriate conduct may result in the imposition of further
sanctions including the dismissal of all or part of this case.
The moving Defendants also ask the Court to seal the abusive letters
that they provided to the Court ex parte. To the extent that the Defendants
request ex parte filing, this is denied because the request is not adequately
justified. The Plaintiff wrote the letters at issue and is aware of their contents;
accordingly, the Court sees no need to accept them ex parte. The Court will,
therefore, instruct the Clerk to enter the letters on the Court’s docket as
exhibits to Doc. 191.
2 The Plaintiff is prohibited from communicating with Ms. Nieters personally as well as
indirectly, such as, by conveying a message through a third party.
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 236 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 5

4
In considering whether sealing documents is appropriate, the Court
must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested
parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic
alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and
factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for
rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th
Cir. 2000); see also L.Civ.R. 6.1. Having considered these factors, the Court
concludes that the subject letters should be sealed until further order of this
Court, as such is the only means of avoiding counsel’s further
embarrassment and harassment.
The Clerk will be instructed to mail a copy of this Order and of the
sealed letters to the appropriate prison authorities so that prison officials may
take any appropriate action to address the Plaintiff’s behavior.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Lambert, Lewis, and May’s Motion for Sanctions and
a Protective Order [Doc. 191] is GRANTED.
2. The Court enters a PROTECTIVE ORDER as follows:
a. The Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED not to engage in any
communication with Ms. Nieters, other than that which is
strictly required to litigate the case;
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 236 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 5

5
b. The Plaintiff is cautioned that any future harassing,
abusive, or otherwise inappropriate conduct may
result in the imposition of sanctions including the
dismissal of all or part of this case.
3. Defendants Lambert, Lewis, and May’s Ex Parte Motion to File
Exhibits 1 and 2 in Support of Motion for Sanctions and
Protective Order Under Seal [Doc. 194] is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART as described in this Order.
4. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to docket Exhibits 1 and 2 as
exhibits to Docket Entry 191 and place such exhibits under seal
until further entry of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is respectfully instructed
mail a copy of this Order and of the Sealed Exhibits3 to the Warden and the
Case Manager at the prison where the Plaintiff currently resides.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 The Clerk is instructed to stamp the copies of the Sealed Exhibits that are provided to
the Warden and Case Manager as “CONFIDENTIAL, FILED UNDER SEAL.”
Signed: December 20, 2023
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 236 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 5