Anderson v. May

Filing 45

ORDER granting 34 and 40 motions to dismiss; dismissing without prejudice Anderson's 1983 claims against Sheriff May in his official capacity for violations of her First Amendment rights; her AWBA and due process claims go forward; dismissin g without prejudice Johnnie Jones; and denying 31 motion to amend. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/6/2024. (jak)Notice: The terminated party will no longer receive filing notifications through CM/ECF. To con tinue receiving filing notifications, email the Clerk of Court and request reinstatement. Please refer to the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures for Civil Filings for information about when a terminated party must be served.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
DOTTIE ANDERSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:23-cv-747-DPM

BOBBY MAY, Individually and in
His Official Capacity as Sheriff of
St. Francis County and JOHNNIE
JONES, in her individual capacity

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1.

The Court previously dismissed Anderson's § 1983 claims

against Sheriff May in his official capacity for violations of her First
Amendment rights. It also raised questions about the timeliness of
service on Johnnie Jones.

Anderson has filed a second amended

complaint and responded to the Court's questions about service. May
and Jones now move to dismiss some of the claims against them.

2.

Anderson's § 1983 claims against Sheriff May in his official

capacity still fail. Anderson hasn't cured the defects the Court noted in
its previous Order about her § 1983 claim for violations of her First
Amendment rights. Doc. 30. She hasn't alleged any facts in her second
amended complaint showing that sheriffs have final policymaking
authority in the employment decisions of sheriff's offices. Thompson v.
Shock, 852 F.3d 786, 793-95 (8th Cir. 2017). Her embedded request to

certify the issue of whether Thompson was wrongly decided to the

Arkansas Supreme Court is denied. Anderson clarifies that she brings
no contract claim. Doc. 39 at 1. The factual issues there remain in the
case solely as a m atter of due process.
3.

Jones moves to dismiss the claims against her, arguing she

wasn't timely served. Anderson doesn't dispute this. Doc. 37. She also
didn't request m ore time to serve Jones or show good cause for why
Jones hadn't been served by Rule 4's deadline. In the circumstances,
Anderson's claims against Jones must be dismissed without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m ). Anderson seeks leave to amend her complaint
again, adding Jones to create a new service window.

Precedent

forecloses this possibility. This kind of proposed amendment would be
futile. Lee v . Airgas Mid-South, Inc., 793 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 2015).
Anderson is correct that, unlike in Lee, there's no apparent limitations
bar here. But Lee is clear nonetheless that serial amendments to cure a
service problem are not allowed.
*

*

*

Motions to dismiss, Doc. 34 & 40, granted.

Anderson's

§ 1983 claims against Sheriff May in his official capacity for violations

of her First Amendment rights are dismissed without prejudice. She
has also abandoned any contract claim against the Sheriff in his official
capacity. Her AWBA and due process claims go forward. Johnnie
Jones is dismissed w ithout prejudice as a defendant. Motion to amend,

Doc. 31, denied.
-2-

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-