Hensley et al v. Kemp et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 7 Motion to Dismiss Case; denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying as moot 10 Motion for a Plea to Correct Clerical Error; denying as moot 11 Motion for Clarity; denying as moot 13 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 14 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 15 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on July 15, 2019. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
GEORGE WESLEY HENSLEY
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:19-cv-04002

KARLTON H. KEMP, JR. et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

For the reasons stated in open court at the hearing on July 12, 2019, in Texarkana,
Arkansas, the Court gives Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended
complaint. The Court gives Plaintiff thirty (30) days from that filing date to properly serve every
separate Defendant in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds
Daniel Hensley is not a proper plaintiff in this action and should be terminated from the docket
sheet.
Also for the reasons provided at today’s hearing, the Court DENIES Separate Defendant
Timothy Hensley’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6), DENIES Separate Defendant
Cody Wayne Hensley’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7), and DENIES Separate
Defendant Karlton H. Kemp, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8). The Court DENIES AS
MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for a Plea to Correct Clerical Error (ECF No. 10), Plaintiff’s Motion
for Clarity (ECF No. 11), Separate Defendant Cody Hensley’s Rule 12(E) Motion (ECF No. 13),
Separate Defendant Timothy Hensley’s Rule 12(E) Motion (ECF No. 14), and Separate Defendant
Karlton H. Kemp, Jr.’s Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 15).
ENTERED this 15th day of July 2019.
/s/

Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE