Cantrell v. Beebe et al
Filing
202
ORDER denying 198 Motion for Hearing; granting 198 Motion for Copies and directing the Clerk to order a copy of the transcript of the May 23, 2011 Hearing and to forward a copy of such to plaintiff; denying 198 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 198 Motion to Compel; granting 200 Motion for Ruling; granting in part and denying in part 201 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/1/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
JIMMY SHANE CANTRELL,
ADC #98730
v.
PLAINTIFF
2:09-cv-00184-BSM-JTK
MIKE BEEBE, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on several Motions filed by the Plaintiff.
1.
Motion for Rehearing/Motion for Ruling on the Motion (Doc. Nos. 198, 200).
This Court held a Pre-Jury Evidentiary Hearing in this matter on May 23, 2011, to determine whether
the case should proceed to a jury trial. This hearing was conducted pursuant to the standard set forth
in Johnson v. Bi-State Justice Center, 12 F.3d 133 (8th Cir. 1993), and the Court considered
Plaintiff’s testimony to be true, drew all appropriate inferences in his favor and refrained from
making any credibility determinations. In his present Motion, Plaintiff asks for a re-hearing, stating
his medical records were partially altered and he was denied the ability to obtain volumes of
discovery prior to the hearing, a request to ask questions of Defendants’ counsel, his requested
witnesses, the opportunity to question defendants, expert witnesses, court-appointed counsel,
adequate time and the tape of his disciplinary hearing.
As mentioned above, the May 23, 2011 hearing was limited in scope, and Plaintiff was
provided the opportunity to testify concerning his claims and to present exhibits. (Plaintiff presented
29 exhibits, Doc. No. 191). In rendering a Recommendation following that hearing, this Court
abided by the standard set forth in Johnson, supra. In addition, Plaintiff may file objections to that
Recommendation. Therefore, the Court will grant his Motion for Ruling, and will deny his Motion
1
for a Re-Hearing.
2.
Motion for Counsel (Doc. No. 198) - Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied without
prejudice, pending the outcome of dispositive motions filed as directed in the Court’s June 6, 2011
Partial Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 196).
3.
Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 198) - The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to
reconsider it’s previous rulings on motions to compel.
4.
Motion for Copies (Doc. No. 198) - The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for
a copy of the transcript of the May 23, 2011 Hearing
5.
Motion for Order for Class Certification (Doc. No. 198) - This Motion will be
6.
Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 201) - Plaintiff asks for an extension of time
denied.
of sixty days in which to submit his objections to the June 6, 2011 Partial Report and
Recommendations. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for more time, but finds that a thirty-day
extension is sufficient. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. No. 200) is GRANTED
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Hearing (Doc. No. 198) is DENIED.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. No. 198) is DENIED without prejudice.
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 198) is DENIED.
5.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies of the Transcript (Doc. No. 198) is GRANTED. The
Clerk is directed to order a copy of the transcript of the May 23, 2011 Hearing to be filed in this
matter, and to forward a copy of such to Plaintiff.
6.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Doc. No. 198) is DENIED.
2
7.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 201) is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff shall be granted an additional thirty days in which to submit his objections to this Court’s
June 6, 2011 Partial Report and Recommendations.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2011.
______________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?