Barnett v. Wallace et al

Filing 26

JUDGMENT: Pursuant to 25 Order 2 plaintiff Matthew Barnett's claims for money damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants James Wallace, John Felts, Jenny Riley, Abraham Carpenter, John Belken, and Andy Shock , both in their official and individual capacities, are dismissed consistent with the terms of the Court's Order. Mr. Barnett's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabil itation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 against defendants James Wallace, John Felts, Jenny Riley, Abraham Carpenter, John Belken, and Andy Shock, both in their official and individual capacities, are dismissed without prejudice. The relief sought by Mr. Barnett is denied. Dismissal of this action counts as a strike and the Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the Order and Judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 3/31/2018. (cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW W. BARNETT
ADC #135607
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:17-cv-00116-KGB

JAMES WALLACE, et al.,

DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Order filed on this date, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that plaintiff
Matthew Barnett’s claims for money damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants James Wallace, John Felts, Jenny Riley, Abraham Carpenter, John Belken, and Andy
Shock, both in their official and individual capacities, are dismissed consistent with the terms of
the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 2). Mr. Barnett’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794
against defendants James Wallace, John Felts, Jenny Riley, Abraham Carpenter, John Belken, and
Andy Shock, both in their official and individual capacities, are dismissed without prejudice (Id.).
The relief sought by Mr. Barnett is denied.
Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
and the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal taken
from the Order and Judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
So adjudged this the 31st day of March, 2018.

________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge