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)

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)