Sandlin v. Humphrey et al
ORDER finding that the defts are not required to have Danny Burl present at trial 215 . Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 4/22/11. (kpr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CHRISTOPHER R. SANDLIN
CASE NO. 2:09CV00051 JMM
LT. MICHAEL T. HUMPHREY, ET AL.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Witness List in which
Defendants state that they will not agree to have Danny Burl present at trial because he does not have
any relevant information to provide to a jury in this lawsuit. Plaintiff has responded contending that
Burl’s testimony exemplifies the retaliatory culture of Arkansas Department of Corrections employees
and is related to a transfer of Plaintiff to the Varner unit of the Arkansas prison system.
Plaintiff’s claims are based upon an incident which allegedly occurred on October 9, 2008, and
involves an allegation that defendant Michael Humphrey physically assaulted Plaintiff and that
defendant Seccer Cole failed to protect Plaintiff from this assault.
After reviewing the pleadings, the Court concludes that Burl was not the warden in charge at the
time of the alleged events, Burl did not participate in any investigation regarding this matter, and Burl
did not respond to any grievances pertaining to this claim. The Court finds that Defendants are not
required to have Burl present at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22
day of April, 2011.
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?