Dunston v. Paschal et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying without prejudice 4 motion to amend complaint. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/27/2025. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
COURTNEY BURT DUNSTON
#202400763

PLAINTIFF

No. 3:24 -cv-181 -DPM

V.

ZACHARY PASCHAL, Officer/Corporal,
Arkansas State Police Troop C; KEVIN
BELL, Sheriff, Randolph County; and
TIMOTHY MCCOLLINS, Deputy Sheriff,
Randolph County
-

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Dunston's motion to amend his complaint, Doc. 4, is denied
without prejudice.

The proposed amendments would be futile.

Plymouth County v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014).
First, Arkansas State Trooper Zachary Paschal is a state official; and a
state official cannot be sued in his official capacity for damages.
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989).
Second, the official capacity claims against Sheriff Bell and Deputy

Sheriff McCollins are really against Randolph County. Brewington v.
Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018). But Dunston hasn't identified
a County policy, practice, or custom that resulted in the constitutional

violations he alleges. LaCoe v. City of Sisse ton, 82 F.4th 580, 585-86
(8th Cir. 2023). Moreover, the existence of an applicable policy,

practice, or custom is not sufficient.

Dunston also hasn't alleged

specific facts showing why and how the County's standard way of
doing things was unconstitutional. LaCoe, 83 F.4th at 586.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-