On August 7, 2025, Attorney Mary Scruggs from the North Carolina Department of Justice filed a motion on behalf of Administrative Law Judge Karlene Turrentine seeking an extension of time to respond to my Amended Complaint until September 15, 2025. Before filing, Mary reached out to me and I made it clear that I would be objecting to the request as extensions are only meant to be granted for good cause and not because opposing counsel is busy. Despite my objection being noted in the filing, the motion was granted almost immediately before I had the opportunity to file a formal written response.
Just six days later, on August 13, 2025, the newly assigned attorney for the other Judicial Defendants, Kristin Uicker, filed a second motion to extend the same deadline, claiming workload and transition to a new role as justification. She did not contact me prior to filing and the motion was granted within an hour of submission, again before I had the opportunity to respond.
Both motions reflect a growing pattern I have been documenting throughout this case and others where the federal court routinely prioritizes convenience for state attorneys over due process for pro se litigants. Extensions are intended for legitimate reasons such as unexpected emergencies or procedural necessity, not as a default courtesy when counsel is busy or behind. Yet this leniency never seems to apply when I am the one seeking time to respond or requesting accommodations.
These filings may look routine on paper but together they expose how procedural imbalance has become normalized. The court’s willingness to grant repeated extensions before allowing me to be heard does not just delay progress, it reinforces a broader problem of unequal treatment where fairness is determined not by the rules but by who is asking.
.