Doe et al v. Arkansas Department of Education et al
Filing
133
ORDER: The Court notes that the docket is incomplete after its 92 Order approved another amendment to the complaint. The Court directs the Clerk to add Tasha Covington, Auxzavion Love, Amoxyea Love, Ronyha Beyah, Rasheed Beyah, Kareem Beyah, Ida Pettus, Lazareous Pettus, and Ezekiel Pettus as additional plaintiffs. The Court construes the 125 Stipulation for Dismissal as a joint partial motion to dismiss, and grants it. All claims of Candice Doe, James Doe, Jade Doe, Kareem Beyah, Rasheed Beyah, Ronyha Beyah, and Ezekiel Pettus are dismissed without prejudice. All of them are no longer parties. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/4/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
LAKESHA DOE, Parent, et al.
v.
PLAINTIFFS
No. 4:15-cv-623-DPM
JOHNNY KEY, In His Official Capacity
as Commissioner of Education and the
LRSD School Board, and MICHAEL
POORE, In His Official Capacity as
Superintendent of the Little Rock
School District
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. The Court notes that the docket is incomplete after its Order, NQ 92
at 4-5, approved another amendment to the complaint. Ng 91. The Court
directs the Clerk to add Tasha Covington, Auxzavion Love, Amoxyea Love,
Ronyha Beyah, Rasheed Beyah, Kareem Beyah, Ida Pettus, Lazareous Pettus,
and Ezekiel Pettus as additional plaintiffs.*
2. The Court construes the stipulation for dismissal, NQ 125, as a joint
partial motion to dismiss, and grants it. All claims of Candice Doe, James
Doe, Jade Doe, Kareem Beyah, Rasheed Beyah, Ronyha Beyah, and Ezekiel
Pettus are dismissed without prejudice. All of them are no longer parties.
*The parties have informally clarified the correct the spelling for all
three Beyah plaintiffs: Ronyha, Rasheed, and Kareem.
So Ordered.
D.P. MarshaJ r.
United States District Judge
-2-
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?