Johnson v. Instant Auto Credit Corporation

Filing 5

ORDER: The Court orders the parties to show cause within 10 days of the entry date of this Order why the present suit should not be consolidated with Case No. 3:17-cv-00127. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 3/12/2018. (jak)

,.

•

•

FILE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
U.S. DISTRICT c;
WESTERN DIVISION
EASTER~l~TRICT ... R

0
JAMES McALPHIN
ADC#88328

v.

NO. 4:17CV00343-SWW-JJV

BRENDA WADE, Director,
Arkansas Claims Commission, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, because no actual
controversy continues to exist. The Supreme Court has held that "[t]he rule in federal cases is
that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed." Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). For a case-or-controversy to
exist, there must be injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). Redressability is "a likelihood that the requested

relief will redress the alleged injury." Id. at 103. In the case-at-hand, Plaintiff was only entitled to
equitable relief of a new hearing before the Arkansas Claims Commission. See Doc. No. 19. On
February 15, 2018, Plaintiff was given a new hearing for his original claims by the Arkansas
Claims Commission. SUMF 'fi 9. Thus, Plaintiff's lawsuit is moot. Accordingly, Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is to be "rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
1

•

.,_..

•

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact requiring the trier of fact to resolve the dispute in
favor of one party or the other. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). An issue of fact is material only ifthe fact could
affect the outcome of the case under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving
party must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact in order to survive a motion for
summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986). To establish the existence of a genuine issue, the nonmoving party must produce "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. The mere existence of some disputed factual issues

will not defeat a summary judgment motion where the disputed issues are not genuine issues of
material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. A disputed issue is genuine if the evidence could
lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

ARGUMENT
I.

Defendants Are Entitled to Summary Judgment because Plaintiff's Lawsuit Is
Moot.
The "central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in the circumstances
that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief."
13C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.3 (3d ed., Westlaw
2011). "When a case "no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy, the case is
moot and the federal court no longer has jurisdiction to hear it." Hickman v. State of Missouri,
144 F.3d 1141, 1142 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42

· F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir. 1994)).

2

,,.

•

•

This Court ruled that Plaintiff was only entitled to equitable relief. Doc. No. 19. Thus,
Plaintiff was only entitled to a new hearing by the Arkansas Claims Commission for his original
claims that he presented to the Claims Commission at his hearing on March 15, 2015. On
February 15, 2018, Plaintiff was given a completely new hearing by the Arkansas Claims
Commission for Plaintiffs original claims. SU.MF~ 9. Thus, Plaintiff has received the only relief
to which he is entitled; therefore, Plaintiffs claim is moot. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled
to summary judgment as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Brenda Wade and the Arkansas Claims Commission
respectfully requests that Plaintiffs lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice and for any and all other
just and proper relief to which they may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

By:

~Ph-4d'L
mce~France
Ark Bar No. 2010063
Assistant Attorney General .
Arkansas Attorney General's Office
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

3

....' .

•

Certificate of Service

•

I, Vincent P. France, hereby certify that on March 9, 2018, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMIECF system.
I, Vincent P. France, hereby certify that on March 9, 2018, I mailed the foregoing
document by U.S. Postal Service to the following non-CM/ECF participant:
James McAlphin, ADC #088328
Varner Supermax
P.O. Box400
Grady, AR 71644

c(4p,~
Vincent P. France

4