Curry v. Weiford, No. CIV.A. 2:03CV115.

CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtMaxwell
Citation389 F.Supp.2d 704
PartiesJudy CURRY, Plaintiff, v. Walter W. WEIFORD, personally and in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; Robert A. Alkire, personally and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; David A. Walton, personally and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; and County Commission of Pocahontas County, West Virginia, Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A. 2:03CV115.
Decision Date21 September 2005
389 F.Supp.2d 704
Judy CURRY, Plaintiff,
v.
Walter W. WEIFORD, personally and in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; Robert A. Alkire, personally and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; David A. Walton, personally and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West Virginia; and County Commission of Pocahontas County, West Virginia, Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 2:03CV115.
United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia.
September 21, 2005.

Page 705

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 706

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 707

Pro Se, Judy Curry, Hillsboro, for Plaintiff.

Andrew S. Woods, Duane J. Ruggier, II, Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, PLLC, Charleston, for Defendants.

ORDER

MAXWELL, District Judge.


I. Introduction

On December 22, 2003, the plaintiff filed a pro se civil action against the abovenamed defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and W.Va.Code §§ 61-2-9, 61-5-27, and 61-5-28 seeking monetary damages and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from continuing to violate her civil and constitutional rights.

Page 708

On June 13, 2005, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court issued a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975) advising the plaintiff of her right to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On July 18, 2005, the plaintiff filed a response. On July 26, 2005, the defendants filed a reply. On August 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter has been fully brief and is now ripe for judicial review.

II. Plaintiff's Contentions

The plaintiff asserts that on December 20, 2001, she went to the office of Defendant Weiford, the Pocahontas County Prosecutor, to complain that the Pocahontas County Sheriff's Department had failed to investigate the alleged theft of her beagle by Larken Dean, a cousin of Defendant Walton. The plaintiff alleges that Defendant Weiford told her he "`had no control' of the actions of the deputy, Brad Totten, whereby stating there was nothing he could do for the plaintiff relevant to the failure to act upon her civil complaint." (Complaint ¶ 10). The plaintiff further asserts that Defendant Weiford ordered her out of his office and shoved her "in the back repeatedly." (Complaint ¶ 12). According to the plaintiff, as a result of the alleged assault and battery committed by Defendant Weiford, she suffers from head, neck, and shoulder pain consistent with whiplash. (Id. at 13).

The plaintiff raises six counts in her complaint. Counts I, II, and III address alleged violations of state law for assault and battery; witness intimidation; and failure to perform the duties of prosecuting attorney.

In Count IV, the plaintiff alleges that she is bringing a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 18 U.S.C. § 241, because Defendants Weiford, Walton and Alkire "conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate, and interfere with the Plaintiff's free exercise and enjoyment of her rights and privileges under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice and under color of law, repeatedly denied the Plaintiff equal protection and due process of law, whereby holding the relatives of Defendant Deputy Sheriff David A. Walton as `above the law.'" (Id. at ¶ 22).

In Count V, the plaintiff raises a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Count VI, the plaintiff asserts that the County Commission engaged in "gross negligent supervision" and ignored the pattern and practice of selective prosecution.

III. Discovery

Pursuant to the Court's August 5, 2004 Scheduling Order, the parties had until May 27, 2005, to complete discovery. The Court notes that very limited discovery has occurred in this case. The plaintiff responded to the Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. However, the plaintiff has not been deposed. Based on the information before the Court, it appears the following has occurred regarding the defendants attempts to schedule the plaintiff's deposition. By letter dated September 21, 2004, the defendants requested that the plaintiff provide them with dates she was available for deposition, and advised the plaintiff that her deposition would occur at the Pocahontas County Courthouse. No response was received. By another letter dated September 21, 2004, defense counsel made a second request

Page 709

for available dates to take the plaintiff's deposition, and advised her that her deposition would be held at the Pocahontas County Courthouse.1

On October 8, 2004, the plaintiff spoke with defense counsel, Drew S. Woods, regarding the location of her deposition. The plaintiff advised Mr. Woods that she did not want to have her deposition taken at the Pocahontas County Courthouse because such was the site of the incidents alleged in her complaint. Thus, defense counsel offered to conduct the deposition at either their offices in Beckley or Charleston, West Virginia. However, the plaintiff requested that her deposition be conducted in a "motel room so that she could either lie-down or relax during the proceeding." The plaintiff was advised that she would be contacted at a later date.

The plaintiff sent defense counsel a letter dated October 7, 2004, in which she made numerous allegations against various individuals including "a federal judge."2 Along with her October 7, 2004 letter, the plaintiff sent defense counsel a letter dated May 17, 2004 which she received from Dr. Debra C. Sams, D.O. Dr. Sams stated that the plaintiff had been her patient for over five years, and suffers from "recurrent severe depression" and "recurrent severe low back problems." Dr. Sams further stated "[d]ue to the severity of her depression and back problems, the simplest work tasks take a longer period of time. As a result of this, I feel Mrs. Curry to be totally disabled." The plaintiff also sent defense counsel a copy of a letter dated May 27, 2004 which she wrote to Dr. Sams. In her letter, the plaintiff described her various symptoms.3

Subsequently, by letter dated October 13, 2004, defense counsel advised the plaintiff that her deposition would be conducted either at the Pocahontas County Courthouse, or their offices in Beckley or Charleston, West Virginia. Defense counsel further advised the plaintiff that her failure to provide deposition dates within 7 days of the date of the correspondence would result in their filing a motion to dismiss.4 The defendants eventually requested the Court order the plaintiff to subject to the taking of her deposition at either the Pocahontas County Courthouse or the law office of Pullin, Fowler, & Flanagan, PLLC, in Beckley, West Virginia. By order entered on November 17, 2004, the Court ordered the plaintiff to attend her deposition at the Beckley Office of Pullin, Fowler, & Flanagan, PLLC and within 7 days of the entry of the Order provide defense counsel with dates of her availability for her deposition.

On December 2, 2004, the defendants filed a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a result of the plaintiff's "callous disregard to participate in discovery

Page 710

and obey an Order of this Court." (Doc. # 27 at 1).

By Order entered on April 1, 2005, the Court denied the defendants' motion for default judgment and ordered the plaintiff to show cause within 15 days of entry of the order why she failed to comply with the Court's November 17, 2004 Order and to provide medical evidence which documented her inability to attend her deposition at the office of defense counsel in Beckley, West Virginia.5

On April 14, 2005, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause. In her motion, the plaintiff stated that she had to " wait until April 8, 2005, to get an appointment with her physician." She also asserted that Dr. Sams is "preparing documents which are to be typed by an `outside' clerical service for the Plaintiff to present to the Court." The plaintiff stated that she would respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause on or before April 26, 2005.

On April 26, 2005, the plaintiff filed a document titled Plaintiff's Response to Court Order Entered April 20, 2005, in which she stated that Dr. Sams is working on documentation for the plaintiff to submit to the Court. The plaintiff also argued that the defendants have acted unethically by failing to request her medical records.

On April 28, 2005, the plaintiff filed a document titled Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause in which, among other things, the plaintiff alleged that had the defendants requested her medical records, they would have received the "just cause" as to why she had not complied with the Order of the Court. The plaintiff also attached a copy of the April 25, 2005 report of Dr. Sams and requested that her deposition be conducted at a neutral location in Marlinton, West Virginia.

Prior to the plaintiff making her filings on April 26, 2005, and April 28, 2005, on March 17, 2005, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time to Amend Pleadings and on April 4, 2005, she filed a Motion to Amend Pleadings.

By Order entered on May 10, 2005, the Court Ordered the defendants to file a response, if any, to the plaintiff's Response to Court Order Entered April 20, 2005 and Response to Order to Show Cause and plaintiff's Motion Extend Time to Amend Pleadings and Motion to Amend Pleadings.

On May 24, 2005, the defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause in which they argued that the plaintiff has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Alcoa, Inc. v. U.S., No. 02:03CV0626.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 23, 2005
    ...or repay an item previously included in gross income when it incurred environmental remediation costs from 1992 to 1995." Reynolds, 389 F.Supp.2d at 704. As an alternative basis for its decision, the Reynolds court found that it did not "need to reach the issue of whether the inventory exce......
1 cases
  • Alcoa, Inc. v. U.S., No. 02:03CV0626.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 23, 2005
    ...or repay an item previously included in gross income when it incurred environmental remediation costs from 1992 to 1995." Reynolds, 389 F.Supp.2d at 704. As an alternative basis for its decision, the Reynolds court found that it did not "need to reach the issue of whether the inventory exce......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT