Stevens v. Montreat College, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM
RYAN CRAIG STEVENS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
MONTREAT COLLEGE; )
DR. PAUL J. MAURER; )
DR. DANIEL BENNETT; )
DR. DOROTHEA SHUMAN; and )
DR. RYAN ZWART, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time (the “Motion for Extension,” Doc. 8) and Defendant Montreat College’s
Motion to Dismiss and to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Court’s Order (the
“Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 9).
I. Relevant Background
On October 24, 2022, Ryan Craig Stevens (“Plaintiff”) filed his Original
Complaint in the Superior Court of Buncombe County, North Carolina. Doc.
1 – 1.
On October 6, 2023, Defendant Montreat College (“Montreat”) removed
the case to this Court. In its notice of removal, Montreat stated that, on
September 28, 2023, Plaintiff emailed counsel for Montreat an Amended
Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 5

2
Complaint which asserted claims under both state and federal law. Montreat
removed the case on the basis that the Amended Complaint, for the first
time, included allegations that Defendant had violated Plaintiff’s rights
under federal law. Doc. 1.
On November 3, 2023, the undersigned conducted a status conference.
During that proceeding, the parties represented that Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint had been filed in state court before the case was removed. The
Court directed Defendants to file, on or before November 17, 2023, a file-
stamped copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and directed Plaintiff to file,
on or before December 1, 2023, a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was
advised that he should attempt to ensure that his filing complied with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8. Doc. 4.
Montreat filed a copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint later that day.
Doc. 5. The Amended Complaint bears a file stamp showing that it was filed
on October 3, 2023 with the Clerk of Superior Court in Buncombe County,
North Carolina (which was three days before Montreat removed the case).
Doc. 5 – 1 at 2.
Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by December 1,
2023.
On December 5, 2023, the Motion for Extension was filed. Therein,
Plaintiff states that he served his Amended Complaint on Defendants but
Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 5

3
that defense counsel, on November 10, 2023, advised that Montreat was the
only Defendant that had been served properly. Plaintiff states that
“Defendants’ denial of representing the individual defendants of the
Complaint has caused disorder” and that additional time is needed to serve
each Defendant.
On December 7, 2023, Montreat filed the Motion to Dismiss. In that
filing, Montreat requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
Montreat in the Amended Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
November 3 Order and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by December 1 as
directed but filed the Motion for Extension on December 5. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Extension, though, is deficient for a number of reasons.
First, the Motion does not indicate that Plaintiff consulted with defense
counsel, as required by the Local Rules. See LCvR 7.1.
Second, the Motion for Extension was untimely. The document is dated
December 1 but bears no certificate of service and was not filed until
December 5.
Third, as Montreat points out, because the Motion for Extension was
untimely, Plaintiff was required to show excusable neglect for his failure to
comply with the deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff appears to state
Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 5

4
that he did not comply with the November 3 Order due to disputes over
whether the Individual Defendants have been served. The Court, however,
was clear, both during the status conference and in the November 3 Order,
that Plaintiff was being directed to file a Second Amended Complaint by
December 1; Plaintiff was not instructed to make filings regarding issues
pertaining to service on the Individual Defendants.
The undersigned acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding	
pro se.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff is still expected to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, and Orders of the Court entered in
this matter.
Under these circumstances, the undersigned has closely considered
denying the Motion for Extension, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims, and/or imposing other sanctions as may be appropriate.
However, bearing in mind the general policy that, when possible, cases
should be decided on their merits and not on procedural grounds, the
undersigned will not take such action at this time and will extend Plaintiff’s
deadline for filing a Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 8) is GRANTED IN
PART. In the Court’s discretion, the deadline for Plaintiff to FILE a
Second Amended Complaint is extended to and including December
Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 5

5
22, 2023. Plaintiff is ADVISED that no further extensions of his
deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint will be granted absent
extraordinary circumstances.
2. In light of the disposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension,
Defendant Montreat College’s Motion to Dismiss and to Deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Court’s Order (Doc. 9) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Signed: December 11, 2023
Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 5