Jackson v. Safeco National Insurance Company et al
ORDER directing defts to submit an additional briefing re abstention issues on or before September 4, 2009, and directing plaintiff to respond on or before September 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/24/09. (bkp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL JACKSON v. CASE NO. 4:09-CV-00257-BSM PLAINTIFF
SAFECO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER; KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacities; PATRINA TABURN, in her official and individual capacities; TRACY DAVIS, in her official and individual capacities; B.J. ROBISON, in his official and individual capacities; DR. GREG KUCZINSKI, in his official and individual capacities; ROSA PORTER, in her official and individual capacities; and TOM GRUNDEN, in his official and individual capacities ORDER
Because the Little Rock Community Mental Health Center ("LRCMHC") defendants assert that abstention is appropriate, the parties are hereby ordered to brief whether abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate; whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is applicable pursuant to Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); and whether this case is barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). It is noted that the current record leaves many questions unanswered concerning the state court judicial proceedings and Jackson's status under the Act 911 program. Thus, to fully address the abstention issues, the parties should provide additional details regarding the state court judicial proceedings. The defendants are directed to submit the additional briefing on or
before September 4, 2009, and plaintiff is directed to respond on or before September 15, 2009. Replies, if any, should be submitted by September 21, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24th day of August, 2009.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?