Washington v. Byrd et al

Filing 42

ORDER, Defendant shall file, on or before November 21, 2011, a Supplemental Brief in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment that contains the information specified in this Order; denying, as moot, docket entry # 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; and Plaintiff may file, on or before December 20, 2011, a Supplemental Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 10/26/2011. (kcs)

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

WILLIE WASHINGTON,
ADC #133081
V.

PLAINTIFF
4:11CV00008 JTR

KARL BYRD, Sheriff,
Faulkner County Detention Center, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
There are two nondispositive matters pending, which the Court will address
separately.
I. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Faulkner County
Detention Facility, Defendants punished him without affording him procedural due
process. See docket entries #2 and #5.
On August 29, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
which they concede that pretrial detainees are entitled to procedural due process prior
to being punished while (in most cases) convicted prisoners are not. See docket entry
#32. They go on to argue that Plaintiff was a convicted prisoner, and not a pretrial
detainee, because at the time of the alleged constitutional violations he was in custody
-1-

on pending parole violation charges.1 Id. However, Defendants have not cited any
legal authority to support that proposition, which appears to be a novel issue in the
Eighth Circuit. Similarly, Defendants have not provided any specific legal authority
to support their contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Serna v.
Goodno, 567 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that qualified immunity is a
“fact-intensive inquiry that must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the
case, [and] not as a broad general proposition”); Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 712 (8th
Cir. 2004) (same).
Thus, the Court will give Defendants until and including November 21, 2011,
to file a Supplemental Brief that provides legal authority to support their arguments.
Thereafter, Plaintiff will have until and including December 20, 2011, to file a
Supplemental Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion asking the Court to compel
Defendants to respond to Interrogatories he sent them sometime in June or July of
2011. See docket entry #40. Defendants have filed a Response stating that they served
Plaintiff with their Responses to his Interrogatories on October 12, 2011. See docket

1

Plaintiff’s parole was revoked after the alleged constitutional violations
occurred. Id.
-2-

entry #41. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied as moot.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants shall file, on or before November 21, 2011, a Supplemental

Brief in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment that contains the information
specified in this Order.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket entry #40) is DENIED, AS MOOT.

3.

Plaintiff may file, on or before December 20, 2011, a Supplemental

Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 26th day of October, 2011.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-