Barnett v. Arkansas Board of Parole et al
ORDER denying 16 Motion for Copies; denying 16 Motion for Hearing; denying 17 Motion to Strike ; denying 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 24 Motion to Stay. The Clerk is directed to send to plaintiff an application to proceed ifp, along with a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 9/16/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MATTHEW W. BARNETT
CASE NO. 4:11CV00533 JMM
ARKANSAS BOARD OF PAROLE, ET AL.
On June 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a
Complaint with a Jury Demand against members of the Arkansas Parole Board contending that
they and others had violated his constitutional rights. On July 11, 2011, Plaintiff was granted in
forma pauperis status and the United States Marshall was directed to serve Defendant John Felts
and James Williams II. After amending his Complaint to identify Felecia Thomas as a
Defendant, the Court directed service for Defendant Thomas on August 23, 2011.
Defendant Felts and Williams filed an answer to the Complaint on August 8, 2011, rasing
multiple affirmative defenses including, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, failure to state
a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Clean
Hands Doctrine, statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, and failure to first pursue habeas relief
prior to this § 1983 action as required by applicable law. Defendant Thomas has not filed an
answer as of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff has subsequently filed a Motion for a Copy of this Court’s Local Rules and for
Hearing (#16); a Motion to Strike (#17); Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
(#23); and Motion to Stay (#24). For the reasons stated below, all of these motions are denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Copy of Local Rules (#16), Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery (#23), and Motion to Stay (#24) are predicated on the fact that Plaintiff is
either in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Corrections or Pulaski County Detention
Center. Plaintiff has recently informed the Court that he has been paroled and is now living at
Sober Living on John Barrow Road in Little Rock, Arkansas. This being the case, these motions
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#17) is denied as Defendants Felts and Williams have raised
legitimate defenses as required by Rules 8(c) and 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because his Motion to Strike is without merit, his Motion for a Hearing on that request (#16) is
also without merit. Moreover, his request for a hearing on all future motions is denied (#16) as
As noted, Plaintiff recently filed a notice of change of address (#26) indicating that he is
no longer incarcerated. When plaintiffs who have been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are released from confinement, it is the Court’s policy to require them to submit current
information regarding financial status. Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this lawsuit,
he is directed to submit a status update or current request to proceed in forma pauperis to the
Court within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order may result
in dismissal of this action under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).1 The Clerk of Court is directed to send
Plaintiff an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, along with a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16
September , 2011.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Plaintiff is notified of his responsibility to comply with the Local Rules of the
Court, including Rule 5.5(c)(2), which states: “It is the duty of any party not represented
by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any
change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or
defend the action diligently. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her
pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. If any
communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30)
days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be
expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
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?