White v. Ollar et al
ORDER denying 36 Motion for Sanctions; granting 44 Motion for More Definite Statement. Deft Doe will not be required to file a response to pltf's complaint until pltf can more clearly identify him. When pltf is able to identify deft Doe, he shall notify the Court in the form of a Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 10/5/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CHARLES BRUCE WHITE,
LYNN OLLAR, et al.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and John Doe
Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. Nos. 36, 44). Defendants filed Responses
to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. Nos. 51, 53), and Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
In his Motion, Plaintiff states that while being transported from the Federal Correctional
Institution to the Pulaski County Detention Facility (Jail) in August, 2011, the transporting officer,
Deputy Sheriff May, confiscated from him numerous legal documents and papers. Plaintiff claims
May’s actions were directed by Defendant Ollar and the Chief United States Marshal in an attempt
to sabotage Plaintiff’s legal claims. He asks for sanctions to deter defendants from trying to
sabotage his legal action.
In his Response, Defendant Holladay states that Plaintiff does not allege any involvement
by him in the incident (Doc. No. 51). He states one of his employees, Sgt. Ware, witnessed
Plaintiff’s arrival to the Jail, at which time Plaintiff accused Deputy Sheriff May of stealing his legal
papers. Deputy May searched the transport van and did not locate any additional papers.
Response, Defendant Ollar denies Plaintiff’s allegations in an Affidavit, stating the policy of the
United States Marshal Service is to review all inmates’ documents for contraband, but that they are
not to be read or confiscated unless they constitute contraband (Doc. No. 53-1). Ollar also states she
was not involved in the transport of Plaintiff to the Jail on August 4, 2011, or back to the federal
facility in Mason, Tennessee, on August 31, 2011, and did not direct anyone to confiscate Plaintiff’s
legal materials. Id. Finally, Defendant states Plaintiff provides no legal basis to support his Motion,
stating that FED.R.CIV.P. 11(b) and 37, which deal with sanctions, are not applicable to this
situation (Doc. No. 53).
The Court agrees with the Defendants that Plaintiff provides no legal basis in support of his
Motion for Sanctions from them. If Plaintiff was harmed by the confiscation of his legal documents,
he may file a separate legal action based on that incident. However, the Court finds no support for
granting sanctions against Defendants at this time. Therefore, the Motion will be denied.
Motion for a More Definite Statement
Plaintiff named as a Defendant, “John Doe, the Chief United States Marshal.” In the present
Motion, Defendant asks the Court to order Plaintiff to more clearly identify this Defendant, stating
that there is no such position as a Chief United States Marshal. Defendant states there is a position
of United States Marshal and a position of Chief Deputy United States Marshal, and that Plaintiff’s
current Complaint is too vague to enable the United States Marshal Service to identify the
Plaintiff states in his Response that he is suing the person responsible for operation of the
United States Marshal in this region, and asks to identify Defendant Ollar’s supervisor.
The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion, and will direct Plaintiff to more clearly identify
the John Doe named in his Complaint. If Plaintiff is currently unable to identify this individual, he
may use the discovery process (requests for admission, interrogatories, requests for production of
documents) in order to try to identify John Doe. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 36) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc.
No. 44) is GRANTED. Defendant John Doe will not be required to file a Response to Plaintiff’s
Complaint until Plaintiff can more clearly identify him. When Plaintiff is able to identify Defendant
Doe, he shall notify the Court in the form of a Motion to Amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2011.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?