Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoskins v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

February 10, 2014

DAVID A. HOSKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMESE E. SMITH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES C. FOX, Sr., District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the following motions:

1) Plaintiffs motion to void NCPLS investigation and direct Defendants to answer the complaint [DE-52];
2) Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment [DE-69];
3) Plaintiffs motion to suppress character evidence [DE-70];
4) Plaintiffs motion for entry of default [DE-76];
5) Plaintiff's motion for trial and motion for settlement [DE-84]; and
6) Defendants' motion for summary judgment [DE-86].[1]

For the following reasons; (1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [DE 69] is DENIED; (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment [DE-86] is ALLOWED; and (3) Plaintiff's remaining motions [DE-52, 69, 70, 76, 84] are DENIED AS MOOT.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety[2] filed his original complaint on May 10, 2011. Compl. [DE-1]. Since the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern of filing numerous motions and other documents that are "wholly irrelevant." January 24, 2013 Order, [DE-36], pp. 1-2. Between May 10, 2011 and September 16, 2011, Plaintiff submitted 14 filings, including four separate requests to amend his complaint [DE-5, 7, 11, 19]. On November 14, 2011, this court allowed Plaintiffs motions to amend and denied Plaintiff's other motions. See November 14. 2011 Order [DE-21]. After he was given leave to amend his complaint, Plaintiff tiled another seven documents with the court, including a renewed motion to amend [DE-27]. Plaintiff was ultimately given leave to further amend his complaint on May 30, 2012. May 30, 2012 Order [DE-29]. However, Plaintiff was also admonished that "[u]ntil [he] files an amended complaint which complies with the court's orders and permits this court's discharge of its screening duties, the court will not consider other unrelated motions filed by plaintiff." Id. at 3. Plaintiff tiled yet another motion to amend on November 16. 2012 (DE-31]. This request was allowed on December 19, 2012. See December 19, 2012 Order, [DE-32] Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in this matter on January 11, 2013. Am. Compl. [DE-35]. He also filed a "motion for speedy meritorious status" [DE-34] on that date.

On January 24, 2013, the court denied Plaintiff's "motion for speedy meritorious status" [DE-34] 34] and determined that Plaintiff's complaint survived frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(13). January 24, 2013, Order, [DE-36]. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court entered an order of investigation [DE-37] instructing North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. ("NCPLS") to investigate Plaintiff's claims. Between February 26, 2013 and April 10, 2013, Plaintiff tiled: (1) a motion for entry of default [DE-41]; (2) a motion to voluntarily dismiss [DE-45]; and (3) a motion to void NCPLS investigation and direct Defendants to answer his complaint within 30 days [DE-52]. The court denied Plaintiffs motion for entry of default [DE-41] and motion to voluntarily dismiss [DE-45] on May 2, 2013. See May 2, 2013 Order, [DE-55]. NCPLS opined that appointment of counsel was not required in this action on May 14, 2013. Response to Order of Investigation [DE-58].

Defendants filed their Answer [DE-67] to the amended complaint on June 17, 2013. On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff tiled a motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment [DE-69], and a motion to suppress character evidence [DE-70], He also filed a "reply" to Defendants' answer on June 25, 2013 [DE-71]. Plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of default [DE-76] on August 12, 2013 and a motion for trial and settlement [DE-84] on October 4, 2013. On October 15, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [DE-86]. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curium), the court non fled Plaintiff about the motion, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadline. Roseboro Notice, (DE-88]. Plaintiff responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on October 30, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.