United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. WHITNEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion
for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests, (Doc.
No. 37), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, (Doc. No. 39), and Defendants Lee, Mitchell and
Williams' Motion for Extension of Scheduling Orders,
(Doc. No. 40).
scheduling order may be modified “only for good cause
and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b)(4). “Good cause” means that
“scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a
party's diligent efforts.” Dilmar Oil Co. v.
Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C.
1997) (citations omitted). The court has “wide latitude
in controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude given
the district courts extends as well to the manner in which it
orders the course and scope of discovery.” Ardrey
v. United Parcel Service, 798 F.3d 679, 682
(4th Cir. 1986).
filed his Motion seeking an extension of discovery cutoff
date on February 1, 2019. At that point, the discovery period
as set forth in the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan
had already expired. (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff's untimely
Motion will be denied.
timely filed their Motion seeking an extension of the
deadline to file dispositive motions. For good cause shown,
an extension of time to file dispositive motions will be
granted until May 10, 2019. No. further extensions of time
will be granted except on a showing of extraordinary
plaintiff may amend with permission from the court which
“shall be freely granted when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit
“ha[s] interpreted Rule 15(a) to provide that
‘leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when
the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,
there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or
the amendment would have been futile.'” Laber
v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006)
(en banc) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods
Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)). An
amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading
(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of
limitations allows relation back;
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out
of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or
attempted to be set out--in the original pleading; or
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the
party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B)
is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule
for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be
brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have
been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the
proper party's identity.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1) (emphasis added).
Motion to Amend filed on February 12, 2019, Plaintiff asks
that Lanesboro C.I. Administrative Assistant Mrs. Green and
Correctional Sgt. Russell be added as Defendants. He alleges
that they are responsible for his religious and legal books
being withheld from him. Specifically, he claims that Green
held his religious books from February 28, 2015 to April 8,
2015 and refused to allow Plaintiff to take the books into
his possession after he was released from segregation,
contrary to prison policy. He claims that Russell forced him
to send his religious materials home on April 8, 2015 after
Plaintiff was released from segregation, contrary to prison
policy that allows Islamic prisoners to retain religious
reading materials. Plaintiff alleges that Green and
Russell's actions violated the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Plaintiff seeks
reimbursement for the deprivation of his books and
compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages that a jury deems
to be just and equitable.
statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims is borrowed
from the applicable state's statute of limitations for
personal injury actions. See Wallace v. Kato, 549
U.S. 384, 387 (2007). In North Carolina, that limitations
period is three years. Tommy Davis Const., Inc. v. Cape
Fear Pub. Util. Auth., 807 F.3d 62, 66-67
(4th Cir. 2015). The statute of limitations
applicable to RLUIPA claims is four years. See 28
U.S.C. § ...