Hurdsman et al v. Salkeld et al

Filing 42

ORDER re Plaintiff Hurdsman's 37 MOTION for Reconsideration: the Motion will be GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to re-instate Michael Hancock as a party Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff's motion on behalf of Silinzy and Je nnings is DENIED. If Plaintiffs Silinzy and Jennings wish to remain in this lawsuit, they must file their own Motions for Reconsideration and must each submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, with the required calculation sheet signed by an authorized official of the detention center at which they are confined. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 4/19/2010. (jas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION RODNEY A. HURDSMAN, et al. Reg. #26372-177 V. JAMES SALKELD, Director, Arkansas Dept. of Labor and Workforce Education, et al. ORDER Plaintiffs, who are currently or were previously incarcerated in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the Forrest City Medium unit of the Federal Correctional Institute, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 &1985, and 28 U.S.C. 2201-02, 2283 & 2284. The Plaintiffs were directed to file Applications for In Forma Pauperis status, and, on March 19, 2010, the Court dismissed without prejudice the claims of those Plaintiffs who failed to respond (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 37) which seeks to reinstate the claims of Plaintiff Michael Hancock, who was previously granted in forma pauperis status, and reports that the applications of Plaintiffs Jennings and Silinzy have not been completed by the appropriate Bureau of Prisons staff member. 1. Michael Hancock - After reviewing the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff Hancock is correct and the undersigned incorrectly caused his dismissal from this matter. Therefore, the Motion will be GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to re-instate Michael Hancock as a party Plaintiff in this case. 2. Roderick Silinzy and Edward Jennings - Plaintiff Hurdsman lacks standing to request relief for Plaintiffs Silinzy and Jennings. Therefore, his motion on behalf of Silinzy and Jennings 4:09-cv-00892-JLH-JJV PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS 1 is DENIED. Plaintiff Hurdsman is credited for trying to provide assistance in organizing this multiplaintiff matter. However, if Plaintiffs Silinzy and Jennings wish to remain in this lawsuit, they must file their own Motions for Reconsideration. Furthermore, they must each submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, with the required calculation sheet signed by an authorized official of the detention center at which they are confined. Silinzy's and Jennings' cases were dismissed without prejudice for not complying with Local Rule 5.5 and failing to provide their respective requests to proceed in forma pauperis. If they wish to reenter the case, they may do so by submitting the necessary forms as previously ordered by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2010. ____________________________________ JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?