Roberts v. Hobbs et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 128 Motion for Costs. The Court will pay the entire cost of supplemental depositions, and mileage and witness fees. Transcription services will be reimbursed at 75%. There will be no reimb ursement for the $50 paid to the process server for Ms. Robinson's subpoena; granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion to Approve/Approval. The Court will pay the witness and mileage fees for these three witnesses, but the Court w ill not pay $50 per witness for personal service. The total reimbursement comes to $4,810.15. The Court directs the Clerk to make this payment to appointed counsel. Granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion for Summary Judgment. Tucker is dismissed as a deft. The case will proceed solely on the aspect of Roberts's unconstitutional conditions-of-confinement claim on 3/11/13. Granting in part and denying in part 130 Motion in Limine, as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/22/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RODERICK JOHNSON; RICKY WEBB;
and DAVID TUCKER
1. The Court heard argument yesterday afternoon on Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, Document No. 115. The motion is granted in
part and denied in part without prejudice for the detailed reasons stated on
the record at the end of the hearing: Tucker is dismissed as a defendant;
Johnson and Webb are entitled to qualified immunity for the events of 3-9
September 2009 until Roberts's evening conversation with Johnson after the
second overflow; there is no evidence, moreover, that Webb and Johnson had
any part in causing any injury that coincided with the first overflow and
cleanup; and qualified immunity is denied without prejudice for events
starting with the conversation on the evening of 9 September 2009 and the
lack of cleanup (and supplies to clean up) for about two weeks. The case will
proceed to trial solely on that aspect of Roberts's unconstitutional conditionsof-confinement claim on 11 March 2013.
2. The Court also ruled on Roberts's motion in limine, Document No. 130.
For the reasons stated on the record, the motion is granted in part and denied
in part. The defendants will be allowed to question witnesses about the
medical evidence and argue about causation and damages. Prior rulings of
the Court will come in only to the extent discussed at the hearing. Any
evidence or detailed statement about Roberts's prior convictions and bad acts
will be allowed only if Roberts opens the door. Roberts may appear in
civilian clothing, but he must provide his own clothes. The issue of who will
be paying any judgment is not off-limits, but counsel should not make it a
3. Roberts asks the Court to approve reimbursement for out-of-pocket
expenses for appointed counsel, including supplemental depositions
approved at the 31 October 2012 motion hearing. Document Nos. 114 & 128.
These motions are granted in part and denied in part. The total amount
requested is $5,394.01. The Court will pay the entire cost of the supplemental
depositions ($1,045.85). Reimbursement for earlier depositions must be
limited, regrettably, due to the Court's finite resources. Mileage and witness
fees totaling $499.66 will be reimbursed in full. Transcription services will be
reimbursed at 75%, totaling $2,848.88. ($1,328.55+$1,406.80+$1,063.15) x 0. 75.
There will be no reimbursement for the $50 paid to the process server for Ms.
Roberts also applies to approve witness-related expenses for the
upcoming trial - service of subpoenas, mileage, and witness fees for three
individuals who live outside of Little Rock. Document No. 129. The Court will
pay the witness and mileage fees ($415.76) for these three witnesses. But the
Court will not pay $50 per witness for personal service because service can be
made more cost effectively. The total reimbursement comes to $4,810.15. The
Court directs the Clerk to make this payment to appointed counsel.
D.P. Marshall 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?