Miller v. Payne et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting 47 Miller's Motion for a copy of the docket sheet; directing the Clerk to mail Miller a copy of the docket sheet at his updated address; denying Keet's Motion to Lift Stay; denying in part and granting in part Miller's Motion to Amend Complaint; denying Miller's Motion to Appoint Counsel; and granting Miller's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants Payne and Bundik. All claims against Defendants Payne and Budnik are dismissed, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate Payne and Budnik as parties to this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 07/14/2021. (llg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
KEET MILLER
ADC #158736
V.

PLAINTIFF
No. 2:20-CV-00191-BSM-JTR

DEXTER PAYNE, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Keet Miller (“Miller”) filed a single document
containing various motions, as well as a notice of his changed address. Doc. 47.
Miller’s motions will be addressed in turn.
1. Motion for Docket Sheet
Miller requests a copy of the docket sheet. That Motion is GRANTED. The
Clerk is directed to mail Miller a copy of the docket sheet at his updated address.
2. Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery
After Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Exhaustion (Doc. 38), the Court entered an Order staying discovery “in this case as
to all parties, with the exception of any documents or information related to
Plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding claims raised
in this lawsuit.” Doc. 44 at 2. The Court has yet to rule on the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and therefore Keet’s Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED.

As the Court’s Order staying discovery explained, “[i]f the exhaustion issues
are resolved in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court will lift the stay on discovery and issue a
Revised Scheduling Order setting new discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.”
Doc. 44 at 2.
3. Motion to Amend Complaint
Miller’s Motion to Amend seeks to: (1) add a legal claim regarding Defendant
Wright allegedly tasing him while he was handcuffed and Defendants Simpson,
Jordan, and Love-Craft failing to intervene; and (2) modify his relief requested.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that the Court “should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, leave to
amend may appropriately be denied where there are compelling reasons such as
“undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment or
unfair prejudice to the opposing party.” Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d
346, 358–59 (8th Cir. 2011).
Because the Court has already determined that, for screening purposes, Miller
can proceed with these claims against Defendants Wright, Simpson, Jordan, and
Love-Craft (See Doc. 4), the Motion to Amend is redundant and is therefore
DENIED IN PART. However, to the extent that the Motion to Amend Complaint
seeks to update his request for relief, it is GRANTED IN PART.
2

4. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Miller’s Motion requests the Court to appoint him to act as the “legal
assistant” for another inmate, who has filed a separate § 1983 action. This request,
which is wholly unrelated to this case, is DENIED.
5. Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants Payne and Budnik
Miller’s Motion seeks to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Dexter Payne and
Christopher Budnik because they were not named in his grievance. Doc. 47 at 4.
This Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants Payne and Budnik is GRANTED.
All claims against Defendants Payne and Budnik are dismissed, without
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate Payne and Budnik as parties to this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2021.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3