Lyles v. Hardy et al
Filing
34
ORDER adopting in their entirety 7 33 Partial Recommended Dispositions; dismissing Mr. Lyles's claims against Mr. Hardy, Ms. Eoff, and Officer Edwards in their official capacities only; denying Mr. Lyles's 25 27 motions for prelimin ary injunctive relief; permitting Mr. Lyles to add only his claim that Officer Edwards failed to intervene during the alleged use of excessive force by Mr. Hardy; and dismissing without prejudice the other claims raised in Mr. Lyles's 24 amended complaint as not related to the May 2015 assault. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 12/29/2015. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
EDDIE LYLES,
ADC #137756
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:15-cv-548-KGB-BD
MICHAEL HARDY, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has received two Partial Recommended Dispositions from United States
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. Nos. 7, 33). Plaintiff Eddie Lyles filed timely objections to
the first Partial Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 12). No objections have been filed to the
second Partial Recommended Disposition, and the time for filing any objections has passed.
After a review of the Partial Recommended Dispositions, and the timely objections received
thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Partial Recommended
Dispositions in their entirety (Dkt. Nos. 7, 33).
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Lyles’s objections to the first Partial
Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 12). In his objections, Mr. Lyles contends that he should
be permitted to maintain an action against each of the defendants in both their individual and
official capacities, contrary to what Judge Deere recommends.
Judge Deere recommends
dismissing Mr. Lyles’s claims against defendants Michael Hardy, Cherly Eoff, and Officer
Edwards. Specifically, Mr. Lyles contends that Conway County officials “knew things about
these people and looked over those matters and still allowed these people to be apart (sic) of their
countys (sic) official system” (Dkt. No. 12, at 2). Mr. Lyles contends that defendant Cheryl
Eoff, as a police officer, was involved in a shooting that resulted in the death of a 19-year-old
man and that defendant Michael Hardy has a history of allegedly mistreating inmates at the
Faulkner County Jail.
In an official-capacity suit the entity's “policy or custom” must have played a part in the
violation of federal law. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). A local government
may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Personal-capacity suits seek
to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state
law. Graham, 473 U.S.at 165–66. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, “generally represent only
another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Id. It is not
a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Id.
In his complaint, Mr. Lyles named Mr. Hardy, Ms. Eoff, and Officer Edwards as
defendants, not Conway County. Moreover, he has failed to point to any policy or custom,
official or otherwise, of Conway County that played a part in defendants’ alleged conduct.
Finally, he has not alleged that Mr. Hardy, Ms. Eoff, or Officer Edwards were decisionmakers
such that they could have set policy for Conway County as an entity.
The Court has also reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition regarding Mr. Lyles’s
request for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 33). No objections have been filed to this
second Partial Recommended Disposition, and the time for filing any objections has passed.
After a review of the second Partial Recommended Disposition, as well as a de novo review of
the record, the Court adopts this second Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety (Dkt.
No. 33).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Mr. Lyles’s claims against Mr. Hardy, Ms. Eoff, and
Officer Edwards in their official capacities only. The Court denies Mr. Lyles’s motions for
2
preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 25, 27). The Court agrees that, based on the allegations
in Mr. Lyles’s amended complaint, in addition to the claims previously raised in his original
complaint, Mr. Lyles is permitted to add only his claim that Officer Edwards failed to intervene
during the alleged use of excessive force by Mr. Hardy. The Court dismisses without prejudice
the other claims raised in Mr. Lyles’s amended complaint as not related to the May 2015 assault.
It is so ordered this 29th day of December, 2015.
_
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Court Judge
3
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?