Vanzant v. Norris et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying pltf's motions for reconsideration 37 and to amend complaint 38 . Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 4/12/11. (vjt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MARK EDWARD VANZANT ADC #137057 V. PLAINTIFF NO: 5:10CV00363 DPM/HDY L. NORRIS et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER On April 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed what has been docketed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying him appointed counsel (docket entry #37), and objection to a dismissal and motion to amend (docket entry #38). Plaintiff has advanced no reason to cause the undersigned to believe appointed counsel is warranted at this time. Additionally, at this time, no claims or parties have been dismissed from this case.1 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to add claims which are unrelated to the alleged excessive force at issue in this matter, the Court concludes that such claims are more appropriate for a separate lawsuit. Finally, Plaintiff’s attempt to sue Defendants in their official capacities for damages is in essence an attempt to sue the State of Arkansas, which is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431-32 (8th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (docket entry #37), and his motion to amend (docket entry #38), are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 day of April, 2011. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has four active cases in this District. Claims against several Defendants have been dismissed in one of them. See Vanzant v. Owen et al., ED/AR No. 5:10CV365.

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?