Hanson v. Baxter County Arkansas et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 75 Motion to Change Venue; denying 77 Motion for access to CM/ECF; granting 78 Motion to Extend, the plaintiff is given until 1/31/12, to designate her expert witnesses; further granting 79 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on January 19, 2012. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION TAMMY CHRISTINE HANSON v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 10-3022 BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS; SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY; CHIEF DEPUTY JEFF LEWIS; LIEUTENANT RANDALL WEAVER; SARGENT EDWARD ELLIOTT; CORPORAL LINDA HENRYK; DR. JOSEPH TULLIS; DEPUTY WILTON “CHIP” NORRIS; JAILER HELEN FENWICK; JAILER TONY BECK; JAILER WILLIAM ALTRAZAN; JAILER HEATHER EASTER; JAILER GARNETT McMAHON; JAILER SHERRY LEWIS; JAILER PATRICK GAULT; JAILER JAMES TUDOR; JAILER SONYA OLNAY; and JAILER TONY BECK DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. 79) in this case. The motion (Doc. 79) is granted. As the Court will serve all subpoenas and writs for the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff is reminded she will need to file a timely response to the scheduling order. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to an extension of time to designate her expert witnesses (Doc. 78). The motion (Doc. 78) is granted. Plaintiff is given an extension of time until January 31, 2012, to designate her expert witnesses. Plaintiff seeks access to the Court’s Case Management /Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system (Doc. 77). The CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for Civil Filings limits eligibility for access to the system to attorneys admitted to the bar of this court. The motion (Doc. 77) is denied. Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for change of venue (Doc. 75). This is a civil rights case in which Plaintiff contends she was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement -1- AO72A (Rev. 8/82) at the Baxter County Detention Center. In her criminal case, Plaintiff maintains she was subjected to “intense, negative and seditious media exposure through each and every phase of her being charged with twenty misdemeanor offences involving cruelty to animals. As a result, she states she has been portrayed as a bad person who “deserved what she got” with respect to her unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In her view, the prior injurious publicity can destroy the integrity of her civil trial. The motion (Doc. 75) is denied. The scheduled hearing is to the Court not to a jury. Should a jury trial be held at a later point in this case, Plaintiff may renew her motion for change of venue. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January 2012. /s/ J. Marschewski HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2- AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

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?