Smith v. Arkansas, State of et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting the motions to dismiss filed by April Cantrell and the Dermott School District, 50 and 51 . Fred Smith's claims against April Cantrell and the Dermott School District are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/31/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FRED SMITH, State Representative
No. 3:13CV00050 JLH
APRIL CANTRELL; and
DERMOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT
OPINION AND ORDER
Fred Smith commenced this action by filing a complaint on February 14, 2013. He named
as defendants the State of Arkansas; Thomas D. Deen, Prosecutor for the Tenth Judicial District of
the State of Arkansas; April Cantrell, Superintendent of the Dermott School District; Pam
Stephenson, Title I Coordinator of Federal Programs for the Dermott School District; the Dermott
School District; Rick G. McKelvey, investigator for the Arkansas State Police; Mike G. Middleton,
investigator for the Arkansas State Police; Barry E. Roy, investigator for the Arkansas State Police;
J. Bigham, Deputy Sheriff in DeSoto County, Mississippi; and the DeSoto County Sheriff’s
Department. Smith’s complaint alleges that in the 2006-07 school year Smith provided services to
the Dermott School District. On February 4, 2009, Stephenson reported that Smith was paid twice
for his services. Smith checked his books, found that there was a discrepancy, and told Cantrell that
he would correct the matter. Cantrell and Stephenson reported the matter to Deen, who launched
a criminal investigation and involved the Arkansas State Police in the investigation.
September 22, 2009, Smith was stopped by Bigham in DeSoto County, Mississippi, was arrested
on a warrant as a fugitive of justice, and spent three days in the DeSoto County jail before being
extradited to Arkansas. According to Smith, the Arkansas State Police had falsely entered him into
the NCIC database, which resulted in his arrest in Mississippi. At some point, Smith’s lawyer and
Deen worked out a plea bargain for Smith to plead guilty to a Class D felony with a sentence of six
months, but at the plea colloquy Smith refused to agree, and the judge did not accept the plea.
Based on these allegations, Smith asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
42 U.S.C. § 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and 18 U.S.C. § 242, as well as claims for libel and slander, and
In 2013, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss and were dismissed except Cantrell
and the Dermott School District. Those two defendants have now filed motions to dismiss,
contending that all of Smith’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that Smith has no
private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and that they are immune from suit.
Arkansas provides a one-year statute of limitations for slander and a three-year statute of
limitations for most other torts. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-56-104 and 105; Hampton v. Taylor, 318
Ark. 771, 777, 887 S.W.2d 535, 539 (1994); Roeben v. BG Excelsior Ltd., 2014 Ark. App. 646, at
*4-5, 344 S.W.3d 93, 96-97. The federal civil right statutes upon which Smith relies do not provide
their own statutes of limitation, so federal courts are directed to look to the most analogous state
statute of limitations for claims made under those provisions. Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 266 (8th
Cir. 1996). For Arkansas, the three-year statute of limitations applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, and 1985. Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2007); Morton v. City of Little
Rock, 934 F.2d 180, 182-83 (8th Cir. 1991); Martin v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 568 F.2d 58, 62-63
(8th Cir. 1977).
On September 23, 2014, Smith filed an amended complaint, but he did not obtain leave of
court to do so as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The amended complaint is therefore
All of the events about which Smith complains occurred in 2009, and he obviously knew of
them no later than September 2009. As noted, he filed his complaint on February 14, 2013, which
is more than three years later. Smith’s claims are therefore barred by the statute of limitations.
Smith also asserts claims under federal criminal statutes, but, as Cantrell and the school
district correctly argue, those statutes do not create a private cause of action. Durso v. Summer
Brook Preserve Homeowners Ass’n, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1267 (N.D. Fla. 2008).
For the reasons stated, the motions to dismiss filed by April Cantrell and the Dermott School
District are GRANTED. Documents #50 and #51. Fred Smith’s claims against April Cantrell and
the Dermott School District are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2014.
J. LEON HOLMES
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?