Huffstatler et al v. Craighead County et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 13 Motion for Judgment. Huffstatler's claims against Yates are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/29/2014. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION MATTHEW D. HUFFSTATLER, ADC # 155080 v. PLAINTIFF No. 3:14-cv-40-DPM MICHAEL YATES, Chief of Police, Jonesboro Police Department DEFENDANT ORDER Huffstatler alleges that members of the Jonesboro Police Department were deliberately indifferent to his mental-health needs and sues Yates, the Chief of Police, for failure to train these officers. Huffstatler also says that Yates violated ARK. CODE ANN. ยงยง 20-47-207 & 210(a)(1). Yates moves for judgment on the pleadings; he says the Jonesboro Police Department didn't have an affirmative duty to protect Huffstatler. The Court agrees. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the Jonesboro Police Department to protect citizens against themselves except in limited circumstances not present here. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189,195-96 (1989); Kennedy v. Schafer, 71 F.3d 292,294 (8th Cir. 1995); Gladden v. Richbourg, 2014 WL 3608521, at *4-5 (8th Cir. 23 July 2014). And the Arkansas statutes thatHuffstatler cites provide the procedure for involuntary commitment, but don't impose an affirmative duty on the Department. Yates's motion, NQ 13, is therefore granted. Huffstatler' s claims against Yates are dismissed with prejudice. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. jl United States District Judge -2-

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?