Davis v. Hempstead County Detention Facility et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff given until July 1, 2016 to file a notice of appeal. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on June 1, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

KERRY DAVIS

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:15-cv-04034

v.

HEATH ROSS; JAMES SINGLETON;
JOHNNY GODBOLT and JOAN MCCLAIN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Kerry Davis filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. Before me is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration and
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 34). The parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including
conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment
proceedings. ECF No. 14.
On December 23, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing in part
Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to properly exhaust his administrative remedies
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. ECF Nos. 18. A hearing was held on April 5, 2016
in this matter. Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants appeared via video conference. ECF. No. 29.
The Court ruled Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing his lawsuit
in this matter and Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ECF Nos. 30, 31.
Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) on May 6, 2016. I denied
this Motion on May 18, 2016. ECF No. 33. In Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration
(ECF No. 34) he refers to his disagreement with the Court’s decision and what he believes to be
the unfairness of the court system. ECF No. 32. The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is
1 

limited to correcting “manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 441 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to show any errors of law or fact or to present any newly
discovered evidence in his Second Motion for Reconsideration. The proper procedure is for
Plaintiff to now file an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court’s docket shows on April 19, 2016 Plaintiff was mailed a new in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application along with a letter outlining the procedures for filing an appeal with the Eighth
Circuit. The letter and IFP application have not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff claims in
his Second Motion for Reconsideration he did not receive this paperwork. ECF No. 34. Because
Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court will provide Plaintiff with another IFP Application and appeal
procedure letter. Therefore, I find there is good cause to extend the time for Plaintiff to file his
notice of appeal.
Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Reconsideration and Extension of Time to File Notice
of Appeal (ECF No. 34) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
this Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
Motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
send a new IFP form and the letter regarding the appeal procedures to Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall have
until July 1, 2016 to file a notice of appeal.
DATED this 1st day of June 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2