Croston v. Hobbs et al

Filing 50

ORDER declining 48 Partial Recommended Disposition. Croston's 47 Motion for Default Judgment against Cooksey is denied without prejudice. Motion for ruling, 49 , denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/20/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DETRICK D. CROSTON
ADC #131172
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:13-cv-217-DPM-BD

ARTIS RAY HOBBS, Director, ADC; MARVIN
EVANS, ADC; RAYMOND NAYLOR, ADC;
THOMAS ROLAND, ADC; WILLIAM
STRAUGHN, Maximum Security Unit, ADC;
STEVE OUTLAW, Maximum Security Unit, ADC;
MAURICE WILLIAMS, Maximum Security Unit,
ADC; GREG SOCIA, Maximum Security
Unit, ADC; RODERICK COOKSEY; MORRIS,
Sergeant, Maximum Security Unit; and MARSH,
Correctional Officer, Maximum Security Unit

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Unopposed partial recommendation, NQ 48, declined. Croston' s motion
for default judgment against Cooksey, NQ 47, is denied without prejudice.
Croston claims deliberate indifference, retaliation, and cruel and unusual
punishment against all defendants. NQ 2. Entry of judgment against Cooksey
now could create inconsistent results in this common claims/ multi-defendant
case. United States ex rel. Costner v. United States, 56 Fed. Appx. 287, 288 (8th
Cir. 28 Jan. 2003); Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); see generally, lOA
WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 3d §2690
(1998). Cooksey has lost standing and will not be heard in defense on

liability. But any judgment should await further factual development and the
other defendants' opportunity to defend themselves. An inconsistency may
or may not be justified, depending on what actually happened and applicable
law. Motion for ruling, Ng 49, denied as moot.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-