Dade et al v. Sherwood Arkansas, City of et al
ORDER adopting the 59 recommended disposition to the extent that they are based on the Younger abstention doctrine; granting motions 15 , 25 , and 28 to the extent that they are based on the Younger abstention doctrine and denied in all other r espects; granting Defendants Milas Hale, III and the City of Sherwood's 41 Motion to Adopt the arguments made in the other Defendants' briefs; denying Plaintiff's 75 motion to strike; denying the Sherwood Defendants' 78 motion for reconsideration; and declining to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Axelroth's remaining state law claims. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 6/8/2017. (ljb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CHARLES DADE, et al.
CITY OF SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS;
PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS;
MILAS H. HALE, III, in his Official and
Individual Capacities; and LARRY JEGLEY
in his Official Capacity
Plaintiffs challenge the post-conviction collection methods of “hot check” cases in
Pulaski County, Arkansas. They argue that the post-conviction debt collection system utilizes
arrest and incarceration to coerce payments from plaintiffs that are unable to pay the fines, costs,
and fees in a way that violates their constitutional rights under the U.S. and the Arkansas
Constitutions. Plaintiff Phillip Axelroth asserts a claim for illegal exaction under Arkansas law
arising out of the alleged misuse and misapplication of public funds arising out of the hot check
This case was referred to U. S. Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe for consideration and
determination of all pre-trial matters and for recommended disposition for the resolution of any
dispositive matters. At the time of the referral, each of the defendants had filed motions to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Specifically, the City of Sherwood and Milas H. Hale,
III (the “Sherwood Defendants”) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document No.
15), Larry Jegley filed a motion to dismiss (Document No. 25), and Pulaski County filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document No. 28).1 After these motions were fully
The Sherwood Defendants also filed a motion to adopt and incorporate by reference the arguments made by the
other defendants (Document No. 41); that motion is granted.
briefed, Magistrate Judge Volpe submitted proposed findings and recommendations (Document
No. 59) in which he recommended that the motions to dismiss be granted to the extent that they
were based on the Younger abstention doctrine. 2 Judge Volpe did not reach the remaining issues
in the motions and recommended that the motions be denied in all other respects as a result of the
After the parties had an opportunity to submit objections to the recommended disposition,
as well as responses to the objections, the Court held a hearing at Plaintiffs’ request to hear oral
argument. After a de novo review of the record, the Court is going to adopt the recommended
disposition and grant the motions to dismiss to the extent that they are based on the Younger
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document No. 15), Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 25), and Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Document No. 28) are GRANTED to the extent that they are based on the Younger
abstention doctrine, and DENIED in all other respects.
Defendants Milas Hale, III and the City of Sherwood’s Motion to Adopt (Doc. No.
41) the arguments made in the other Defendants’ briefs is GRANTED.
The Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Axelroth’s
remaining state law claims.
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Document No. 75) is DENIED.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971)
The Sherwood Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Document No. 78) is
This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2017.
James M. Moody 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?