Sandlin v. Humphrey et al

Filing 221

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER R. SANDLIN ADC #136830 VS. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 2:09CV00051 JMM LT. MICHAEL T. HUMPHREY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER 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?