Sargent et al v. Hethrington et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/06/2012. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

MARY SARGENT,
ADC #710323
V.

PLAINTIFF
1:12CV00017 DPM/JTR

TIMOTHY J. HETHRINGTON, Corporal;
and JANICE STEPHENS, Corporal;
Arkansas Department of Correction

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Mary Sargent, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that
Defendants Timothy Hethrington and Janice Stephens used excessive force against her
on January 24, 2012. Plaintiff has recently filed two non-dispositive Motions, which
the Court will address separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint
Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking permission to add a new claim that
Defendant Hethrington used excessive force against her, a second time, on August 18,
2012. See docket entry #52.
That new claim occurred after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, on February 6, 2012.
See docket entry #2. Additionally, Plaintiff admits that she completed the prison
exhaustion process regarding that claim on October 22, 2012, which was after she

filed this action.
It is well settled that a prisoner must fully exhaust her administrative remedies
as to each claim prior to filing a lawsuit in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884,
885 (8th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Plaintiff did not do so in regard to her August
18, 2012 excessive force claim.
Accordingly, the Motion to Amend is denied because it would futile to allow
Plaintiff to add her August 18, 2012 excessive force claim to this lawsuit. See Popoalii
v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008); In re Senior Cottages of
America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007) (same).
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to compel Defendants to produce
any video recordings they have of the August 18, 2012 incident. See docket entry
#53. As previously explained, the August 18, 2012 incident will not be added to this
lawsuit. Thus, the Motion to Compel is denied.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (docket entry #52) is

DENIED.
-2-

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket entry #53) is DENIED.

Dated this 6th day of December, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-