BELTON v. FIELDS
1:23-cv-00169
M.D.N.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Darren S. Belton, a pretrial detainee, filed a pro se federal lawsuit against local government officials alleging unconstitutional use of force and related mistreatment during two specific incidents in custody.
- The Court previously allowed some of Belton’s claims to proceed (against Defendants Danley, Workman, and Hoover for excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and violations of the right to privacy) and dismissed the rest.
- After the parties engaged in discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Plaintiff struggled to litigate while incarcerated, leading to the Court’s efforts to secure pro bono counsel for him; William Trivette subsequently appeared as counsel and sought additional time to gather a supporting affidavit from Belton.
- Plaintiff’s affidavit was ultimately filed two business days after the extended deadline, accompanied by a motion for leave to file late and a contemporaneous request from Defendants for extra time to reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to accept Belton’s late-filed affidavit in opposition to summary judgment | The late filing was due to circumstances beyond Plaintiff’s control (e.g., papers destroyed following an incident); the affidavit is material and consistent with prior claims. | Plaintiff failed to timely assist counsel in submitting the affidavit; delay not well-justified and prejudiced defense. | Court exercised discretion under Rule 56(e) to accept the late affidavit, preferring decisions on merits over technicalities. |
| Whether the summary judgment record, including Plaintiff’s belated affidavit, raises a genuine dispute of material fact on claims of excessive force and related constitutional violations | Plaintiff’s affidavit (and complaint) presents personal-knowledge accounts supporting claims of excessive force and mistreatment. | Defendants’ affidavits and records show no excessive force was used and contradict Plaintiff’s claims, entitling them to qualified immunity. | Court has not yet ruled on merits, but the record (now including Plaintiff’s affidavit) will be considered in deciding summary judgment. |
| Whether Defendants should be permitted additional time to reply in light of the late affidavit | N/A | Given new evidence, a supplemental reply is necessary to adequately address Plaintiff’s contentions. | Court granted Defendants a seven-day extension after its order to file a supplemental reply. |
| Appropriate application of Rule 56(e) when a nonmovant fails to timely support factual assertions | The facts in Plaintiff’s affidavit should be allowed to ensure a fair determination on the merits. | The untimely affidavit should be excluded, and Defendants’ facts deemed undisputed for summary judgment. | Court favored the preferred first step under Rule 56(e): allowing the party to supplement, rather than automatic exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991) (a verified complaint can serve as an opposing affidavit at summary judgment)
- Alexander v. Connor, 105 F.4th 174 (4th Cir. 2024) (nonmovant must present evidence beyond the complaint to survive summary judgment)