Hooper v. Jamison et al
ORDER denying pltf's 5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 5/17/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DANNY LEE HOOPER
NO: 2:12CV00048 SWW/HDY
WESLEY JAMISON et al.
Plaintiff Danny Lee Hooper, currently incarcerated at the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on
March 19, 2012. This complaint was previously filed on September 10, 2009, but was dismissed
on September 19, 2011. See Hooper v. Jamison, ED/AR No. 2:09CV135.
On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his
claims against Todd Ball and Greg Harmon (docket entry #5). Ball and Harmon are not Defendants
in this lawsuit, so in essence, Plaintiff is also seeking leave to amend his complaint to add them as
Defendants. Although Ball and Harmon are not Defendants in this matter, they were Defendants
in Plaintiff’s previous case. In that case, on November 4, 2010, the undersigned adopted the
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere to grant Ball’s and Harmon’s motion
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them. That dismissal was with prejudice, and Plaintiff had an
opportunity to, and in fact did, object to Judge Deere’s recommendation before it was adopted.
Plaintiff appears to suggest that the dismissal was premature because it was prior to his exhausting
grievance EA-09-01071. However, that grievance was exhausted on June 2, 2010, months before
his claims against Ball and Harmon were dismissed (docket entry #2, page #14). Any arguments
Plaintiff seeks to raise as to his claims against Ball and Harmon should have been raised in his
previous case before their dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (docket entry #5)
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
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?