Jackson v. Storey et al
OPINION and ORDER adopting in part 22 Report and Recommendations.; Livermore, T. Muggy (Washington County Detention Center), Arnold (Washington County Detention Center) and Tim Helder terminated.. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 10, 2015. (src) Modified on 3/10/2015 (src).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
STACY ORLANDO JACKSON
Case No. 5:13-CV-05221
SHERIFF TIM HELDER; CAPTAIN LIVERMORE;
SERGEANT T. MUGGY, Washington County Detention
Center; DETECTIVE R. KNOTTS, Fayetteville Police
Department; SERGEANT ARNOLD, Washington County
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the findings and recommendations (Doc. 22) by United States
Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. Also before the Court are Plaintiff Stacy Orlando Jackson’s
objections (Doc. 25).
The Magistrate recommends dismissal of claims against Sheriff Tim Helder, Captain
Livermore, Sergeant T. Muggy, and Sergeant Arnold, as well as dismissal of Jackson’s claim for
defamation. In his objections, Jackson requests that the Court leave the claim for defamation to
consider whether the Court might exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.
Jackson also objects to any characterization by the Magistrate that his false-imprisonment claim is
based on a “mere assertion of innocence.”
The Court finds that Jackson’s first objection is well taken. In its order (Doc. 17) on the
original report and recommendation in this case, the Court recommitted the case to the Magistrate
for further analysis. In that order, the Court stated “[i]f the Magistrate does not recommend
dismissal of all federal claims after such additional analysis, it is also requested that the Magistrate
consider whether Jackson has stated a claim under state law for defamation and, if so, whether the
claim may or should be considered by this Court pursuant to the Court’s ability to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.” (Doc. 17, p. 2). The most recent report, however,
does not analyze the defamation claim under state law and recommends dismissal of that claim only
for failure to state a federal claim. While the Court agrees that no federal claim is stated, failure to
state a federal claim does not warrant dismissal of the state-law defamation claim. The Magistrate
found Jackson’s federal claims against Detective Knotts sufficient to survive pre-service screening,
and service has been ordered as to Detective Knotts. As federal claims remain pending against
Detective Knotts, and as the Magistrate has not set out a basis for dismissal of the defamation claim
at this juncture, the Court will not adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation that the defamation claim
The Court finds that Jackson’s second objection does not warrant departure from the
Magistrate’s findings. While the Court acknowledges that the criminal charges against Jackson were
later dropped, that fact is not sufficient to establish a claim against Sheriff Helder, who was simply
carrying out his duties in executing the arrest warrant. The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s
statement that Jackson’s assertion of innocence did not render the warrant invalid at the time it was
executed. As reasoned by the Magistrate, Jackson does not allege that Sheriff Helder otherwise had
any reason to believe the warrant was invalid.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Magistrate (Doc.
22) is ADOPTED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Helder, Livermore, Muggy, and Arnold are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action for failure by Jackson to state a claim against
them for which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2015.
s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?