Carson v. Thompson et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Sanctions; denying 38 Motion for Sanctions. Hosea Thompson's verified responses to prior interrogs due by 9/29/12. The parties must file simultaneous briefs by 10/3/12. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/20/12. (kpr)

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

ARTHUR CARSON

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:11-cv-733-DPM

ELNORA THOMPSON and
HOSEA THOMPSON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Motions for sanctions, Document Nos. 37 & 38, denied considering all
material circumstances. The Court appreciates Hosea's verified responses to
the interrogatories. Document No. 45. Elnora's verified responses to prior
interrogatories due by 29 September 2012. The Court misspoke in its recent
order, Document No. 41, about the Thompsons' counterclaims. They are
affirmative defenses, not counterclaims.
The parties must file simultaneous briefs answering these questions on
3 October 2012.
1. Does Carson have standing to assert his four claims? See e.g., Braden

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 588 F.3d 585, 591 (8th Cir. 2009).
2. Does the dismissal with prejudice of what appear to be identical

claims in the earlier Texas case, Document No.18 at 14, preclude their

re-litigation here even though the Texas case was apparently later
dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution? See e.g./ Collins

v. City of Corpus Christi, 188 S.W.3d 415, 423 (Tex. App. 2006).
3. If the case remains alive, should it be transferred to a District Court
in Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404?

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
fl
United States District Judge