STUDIVENT v. HUSKEY
1:10-cv-00144
M.D.N.C.Jan 16, 2013Background
- Pro se plaintiff Michael Studivent moves to reconsider a prior interlocutory extension order in a civil case against Vickie Huskey under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims, with prior referrals to magistrate and district judges.
- The court had contemplated dismissing most claims, with some §1983 due process claims against Huskey surviving.
- The court granted multiple extensions for Studivent to respond to Huskey’s Motion to Dismiss; deadline moved from an original date to November 23, 2012, then to January 22, 2013.
- Studivent filed a 15-page Motion to Reconsider (Docket Entry 31) arguing for a further extension to August 5, 2013.
- The court denied the motion, concluding no valid basis for reconsideration existed and no further extensions would be granted beyond January 22, 2013.
- The memorandum ends with an order denying the Motion to Reconsider and closing the matter of extensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to reconsider is proper for an interlocutory 54(b) order | Studivent argues reconsideration is warranted under 54(b) standards | Huskey did not file an objection or new authority necessitating reconsideration | No; reconsideration denied under 54(b) standards for lack of proper basis |
| Whether intervening law, new evidence, or manifest injustice justify reconsideration | Lacked timely extension but claims injustice and delay were excusable | No intervening law or new evidence; delay not justified for extension | No valid grounds; not a basis to alter the prior extension order |
| Whether the pro se status justifies further extension | Status as pro se warrants leniency in deadlines | Procedural rules still apply to all litigants | Pro se status does not excuse adherence to deadlines; no extension granted |
| Whether the Court properly balanced the need for deadlines against plaintiff's difficulties | Court delayed too long and should accommodate plaintiff's hardships | Court reasonably refused further extensions to prevent delay | Court acted within discretion to deny further extensions beyond January 22, 2013 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Insurance Co. v. American National Fire Insurance Co., 148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1998) (reconsideration standards for interlocutory orders)
- United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 218 F.R.D. 468 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (54(b) reconsideration framework for interlocutory orders)
- Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 507 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (limits on use of reconsideration to mere re-arguing)
- Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550 (D. Md. 2001) (no motion for reconsideration under rules; use of 54(b) standards)
- Spear v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153 (7th Cir. 1996) (courts may not entertain routine or belated extensions; finality concerns)