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 the Plaintiff’s pro se “Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff Pickens’ Motion to
Amend and Join Parties” [Doc. 262] and “Motion for an Extension of Time to
Certify my Depositions and Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to
Produce Subpoenaed Discovery” [Doc. 255].
The pro se Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 while he was incarcerated,1 addressing a January 20, 2018 traffic stop
involving the Plaintiff and his passenger, Marcus Hyatt.2 The Complaint
passed initial review on § 1983 claims against Buncombe County Sheriff’s
1 The Plaintiff has now been released. [See Doc. 266 (Notice of Change of Address)].
2 Hyatt and his girlfriend, Ashley Barrett, who was detained in a separate vehicle stop,
filed a separate action, Hyatt v. Miller, Case No. 1:19-cv-00250-MR-WCM.
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 267 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 5

2
Office (BCSO) deputies J.D. Lambert, Jeff May, and Katherine Lewis.3
[Docs. 1, 13]. The Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over several
related North Carolina claims, and for recovery on BCSO’s surety bond
against Western Surety Company. [Doc. 13].
On April 25, 2022, the Court entered a Pretrial Order and Case
Management Plan setting the following deadlines: to amend and join parties
by June 10, 2022; to complete discovery by August 19, 2022; and to file
dispositive motions by September 19, 2022. [Doc. 35]. On July 11, 2022,
the Court granted motions to relate the instant case to Hyatt v. Miller, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00250-MR-WCM and to stay this action pending the outcome of
Hyatt. [Docs. 39, 48, 50]. The Court lifted the stay on August 14, 2023, and
amended the pretrial deadlines: to complete all discovery no later than
September 15, 2023; and to file all motions except for motions in limine and
motions to continue no later than October 16, 2023. [Doc. 143 at 22]. These
deadlines were subsequently extended: until December 13, 2023 to
complete discovery (including taking the Plaintiff’s deposition), and until
January 17, 2024 to file dispositive motions. [Doc. 190 at 13].
3 The Complaint also passed initial review against Asheville Police Department Officer
Steven Hendricks, but his Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim was granted on
April 25, 2022, and the action was dismissed with prejudice as to him. [Docs. 25, 34].
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 267 Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 5

3
On November 8, 2023, the Court denied a Motion to Amend that the
Plaintiff had filed while the case was stayed. [Docs. 145, 190]. To the extent
that the Plaintiff sought an extension of the amendment deadline, this was
denied because the June 10, 2022 amendment deadline was long expired,
and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or due diligence. [Doc.
190 at 8-9]. The Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Order denying him
leave to amend, which was denied because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate
any grounds for relief. [Docs. 212, 213, 214; see Doc. 253 at 4-5].
The parties have now filed Motions for Summary Judgment that are
ripe. [See Doc. 176 (Miller and Western MSJ); Doc. 228 (Plaintiff’s MSJ);
Doc. 245 (BCSO Partial MSJ)].
The Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion for an Extension of Time…” 62
days after the discovery deadline had expired, and after all of the pending
Motions for Summary Judgment had been filed. [Doc. 255]. He seeks
additional time to certify his deposition transcript because of a prison-related
delay in receiving the same. He also seeks to compel the Defendants to
produce discovery because, as a prisoner, he was not allowed to possess a
flash drive containing discovery materials. [Id. at 2-3; see Doc. 255-2 (letter
from counsel to Plaintiff stating: “Regarding the subpoenaed materials, we
sent you a flash drive of those records, but I understand you were not allowed
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 267 Filed 08/09/24 Page 3 of 5

4
to have it. Unfortunately, I cannot mail you copies of the materials produced
in response to our subpoenas because they are voluminous.”)]. The Plaintiff
does not seek an extension of the dispositive motions deadlines; he has not
identified any alleged errors in the deposition transcript; his release from
prison removed any restrictions on possessing a flash drive; and the parties
have filed and fully briefed their Motions for Summary Judgment. The
Plaintiff’s present requests for additional time to certify his deposition
transcript and to compel the Defendants to produce discovery are, therefore,
moot, and his Motion is denied.
In the “Motion for Reconsideration,” the Plaintiff asks the Court to
reconsider, for the second time, the denial of his Motion to Amend and Add
Parties. [Doc. 262; see Docs. 145, 190, 253]. He reiterates many of his
previous arguments, i.e., that the amendment deadline was stayed while the
case was held in abeyance. These arguments are denied for the reasons
previously discussed. [See Docs. 190, 253]. The Plaintiff’s contention that
the Court applied the wrong legal standard when denying his previous Motion
for Reconsideration is mistaken. [See Doc. 253 (citing inter alia Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b))]. The Plaintiff’s contention that the Court erred in concluding that
he did not timely move to extend the amendment deadline because he filed
a “Motion to Relate, Motion to Amend the Court’s Scheduling Order and
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 267 Filed 08/09/24 Page 4 of 5

5
Motion to Modify the Court’s Discovery Guidelines for this Case”
mischaracterizes that Motion. [See Doc. 39]. The “Motion to Relate…” only
seeks an extension of the discovery deadline, and not of the amendment
deadline. The Plaintiff has not asserted any grounds warranting
reconsideration, and his Motion is, therefore, denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order
Denying Plaintiff Pickens’ Motion to Amend and Join Parties” [Doc.
262] is DENIED.
2. The Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Extension of Time to Certify my
Depositions and Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to
Produce Subpoenaed Discovery” [Doc. 255] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 8, 2024
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 267 Filed 08/09/24 Page 5 of 5