Flemons v. Bolden et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Amend. The Court returns this case to the Magistrate Judge for a supplemental recommendation on Flemons's Eighth Amendment claims in light of the new material. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/16/2019. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

AARON ANTHONY FLEMONS
ADC # 119749

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:18 -cv-73 -DPM

V.

GLENDA BOLDEN, Security Officer,
EARU, ADC; DARYL MORRIS, Security
Officer, EARU, ADC; WENDY KELLEY,
Director, ADC; KEITH WADDLE; and
DANIEL GOLDEN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Motion to amend, N 79, denied. FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Justice

doesn't require allowing an amendment at this late stage. The Court
will, however, consider Flemons's proposed amendment as an affidavit
in support of his summary judgment response. In particular, it includes

more facts, provided under oath, about Flemons's time in punitive

isolation.

NQ

79 at 7-8. And though this testimony is self-serving, that

doesn't mean it's necessarily insufficient. United States v. Dico, Inc.,
136 F.3d 572, 579 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court therefore returns this case
to

the Magistrate Judge for a supplemental recommendation on

Flemons's Eighth Amendment claims in light of the new material.

So Ordered.

s./ttlI

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
/'Q

-2-