Watkins et al v. Arkansas, State of et al
ORDER denying 54 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 56 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 57 Motion for Judgment. Second amended complaint is due by January 31st. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/15/14. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
1. Billy's Trucking's motion to dismiss, NQ 54, is denied. The facts are
thin, but Watkins has said enough to state claims against Billy's.
undisputed that Billy's moved the truck from the roadside; it's plausible that
Billy's left the truck unsecured in its lot; Watkins could have had some items
stolen; and this could have contributed to the black mark on Watkins's "DAC
Report." This is enough to push this prose complaint forward. The law is too
unsettled on the availability of a good-faith defense for Billy's against the
constitutional claims. On the arguments made, the motion fails. Compare
Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S.Ct. 1657 (2012).
2. The Court construes Watkins's motion to reconsider, NQ 56, as a
motion to amend his complaint to add individual-capacity claims against
Officers Smith and Perkins. Watkins sued them originally, but made only
official-capacity claims for damages against them. Those claims were barred.
NQ 20. The motion to amend is granted. FED. R. Crv. P. lS(a)(l)(B). Watkins
must file his proposed amended complaint by 31 January 2014.
embedded motion for appointment of counsel is denied for the reasons
previously stated. NQ 8.
3. Watkins's motion for judgment against Billy's, NQ 57, is denied.
Billy's answerisnotoverdue, FED.R.Crv.P.l2(a)(4)(A); the company's timely
motion to dismiss postponed the need to answer.
* * *
Motion to dismiss, NQ 54, denied. Motion for judgment, NQ 57, denied.
Motion, NQ 56, granted. Second amended complaint due by January 31st.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District 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?