Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Thomas Lillard

Summary

The court ruled on motions concerning additional requests for admission, recruitment of counsel, substitution of a party, and extension of deadlines in an inmate civil-rights action. It granted in part and denied in part the request for additional admissions and extension, denied recruitment of counsel, and substituted the Acting Warden of FCI Greenville for the retired defendant. The court reset discovery to March 30, 2026, and dispositive and Daubert motions to April 28, 2026.

Holdings

1. A response that qualifies an admission and denies the remainder of a request, admits the requested fact subject to an objection, or denies the request is a proper response under Rule 36(a)(4). A vague or incomplete objection may require a supplemental response, while an objection to a document-authentication request is proper when the document was not provided or otherwise made available.
2. Good cause existed to permit Plaintiff to serve seven additional requests for admission, but duplicative requests were denied.
3. Recruitment of counsel was denied because, although Plaintiff showed reasonable efforts to obtain counsel, he did not demonstrate that he was unable to litigate the case himself.
4. The Acting Warden of FCI Greenville was properly substituted for Thomas Lillard in the action.
5. The court reopened discovery and reset the deadlines because the additional discovery ruling made revised deadlines appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's responses and objections to Plaintiff's first requests for admission complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.
2. Whether good cause existed to permit Plaintiff to serve additional requests for admission beyond the ten-request limit in the scheduling and discovery order.
3. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated that recruitment of counsel was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
4. Whether the Acting Warden of FCI Greenville should be substituted for the former Warden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
5. Whether discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines should be reopened and reset.

Disposition

other