Thompson v. Greene County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting as modified and specified 6 motion for judgment on the pleadings; complaint dismissed without prejudice to repleading the ADA and ACRA claims, but omitting the VEVRA claim and the Sheriff's Office as a defendant; amended complai nt due by 1/17/2024; and partly granting as modified and partly denying 11 motion to stay report and discovery. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/3/2025. (jak)Notice: The terminated party will no longer receive filing notifications through CM/ECF. To continue receiving filing notifications, email the Clerk of Court and request reinstatement. Please refer to the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures for Civil Filings for information about when a terminated party must be served.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF

JOSHUAH THOMPSON
V.

No. 3:24 -cv-190-DPM

GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
and BRAD SNYDER, Sheriff

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Greene County defendants move for judgment on the

pleadings in Thompson's disability discrimination suit.

Doc. 6.

The motion is granted as modified and as specified.
First, though it appears to be an unsettled question in this circuit,

the great weight of precedent holds that the Vietnam Era Veterans

Readjustment Assistance Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4211-4215, does not provide
a private right of action. E.g., Barron v. Nightingale Roofing, Inc.,
842 F.2d 20, 21-22 (1st Cir. 1988); Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291, 1298

(3d Cir. 1996) (no private right of action under VEVRA § 4214); Seay v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 339 F.3d 454, 473 (6th Cir. 2003); Wikberg v.
Reich, 21 F.3d 188, 189-90 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Carson v. Willow Valley
Communities, 789 F. App'x 310,312 n.3 (3d Cir. 2019) (unpublished and

per curiam) (no private right of action under VEVRA); Suazo v. Regents
of University of California, 1998 WL 339714, at *2 (10th Cir. 24 June 1998)
(unpublished and per curiam). This claim fails as a matter of law.

Second, the Greene County Sheriff's Office is not an entity that can

be sued. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81,82(8th Cir. 1992).
That Office is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Third, limitations. Sheriff Snyder makes a strong argument that

Thompson has pleaded himself out of court on his other claims based
on the date of firing (June 2023) and the date of his EEOC charge

(January 2023). In response, though, Thompson makes a colorable
argument for equitable tolling. This issue is necessarily fact based.

This case in just starting; no discovery has been done; and the
deadline for amended pleadings has not been locked in. The Court
will therefore dismiss Thompson's claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act but, the dismissal
-

is without prejudice and with leave to amend.

Thompson is entitled to re -plead, alleging with specificity why
his seemingly time -barred claims should go forward and attaching any
documents he believes are important on that issue. All this needs to
be done in an amended complaint rather than in briefing.

Fourth, the Court observes that the fact-bound limitations issue is

likely best handled on summary judgment after some targeted
discovery. We'll see.
Last, the motion to stay the Rule 26(f) conference and any

discovery is partly granted as modified and partly denied. The parties
must file their Rule 26(f) report thirty days after Thompson files his

-2-

amended complaint. This case is almost three months old. It's time to
move forward.

*
Motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 6, granted as
modified and specified. Complaint dismissed without prejudice to
repleading the ADA and ACRA claims, but omitting the VEVRA
claim and the Sheriff's Office as a defendant. Amended complaint due
by 17 January 2024. Motion to stay report and discovery, Doc. 11,
partly granted as modified and partly denied.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-