Simes et al v. James et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSING CASE without prejudice to the right of the parties to reopen the proceedings for good cause shown upon resolution of the state criminal actions. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 7/31/09. (mkf)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HELENA DIVISION EARNEST SIMES, ET AL. VS. DR. KENNETH JAMES, ET AL. ORDER The complaint in the above styled case was filed on March 31, 2006, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. In May of 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' First and Second Motions to Stay the case pending the outcome of plaintiffs' individual criminal trials. Since that time, plaintiffs have filed, upon request of the Court, three status reports stating that the criminal proceedings are still pending. The last status report was filed on June 12, 2009. Based upon the open-ended nature of plaintiffs' criminal cases, the Court finds that it is appropriate to administratively close this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the clerk administratively terminate the action in his records, without prejudice to the right of the parties to reopen the proceedings for good cause shown upon resolution of the state criminal actions. Provided however, this case will not be reopened unless within 45 days of the final disposition of the state court criminal proceedings an application to reopen is filed herein by one or more parties to this action. If no such motion to reopen is filed within said 45 day period this order shall be deemed a dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff's claims. This administrative closing of the case tolls any applicable statute of limitations to plaintiffs' claims. Dated this 31 day of July, 2009. CASE NO. 2:06CV00091 JMM DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS James M. Moody United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?