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)

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. §§ 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-