Smith v. Montgomery et al
Plaintiff: Jonathan Cole Smith
Defendant: Sheriff John Montgomery, Captain Jeff Lewis and Lt. Sebastian Dennis
Case Number: 3:2023cv03016
Filed: March 8, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Presiding Judge: Timothy L Brooks
Referring Judge: Mark E Ford
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 1, 2023 Filing 12 CLERK'S ORDER Dismissing Case per #10 Notice of Dismissal and re 11 Text Only Order, (CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE). (lgd)
May 1, 2023 Filing 11 TEXT ONLY ORDER re [ECF No. 10] MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Jonathan Cole Smith. The Clerk is directed to treat the Motion to Dismiss as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismiss this case. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on May 1, 2023. (smg)
April 28, 2023 Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Jonathan Cole Smith. Motions referred to Mark E. Ford.(lgd)
April 20, 2023 Filing 9 TEXT ONLY SHOW CAUSE ORDER - FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER. The Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to to file an Amended Complaint by April 17. 2023. This Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff is given 21 days to show cause why he failed to obey the Order of the Court. If Plaintiff fails to respond by the deadline, this case shall be subject to dismissal. Show Cause Response due by 5/11/2023. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on April 20, 2023. (smg)
March 29, 2023 Filing 8 TEXT ONLY ORDER denying #6 Motion to Amend/Correct. The proposed Amended Complaint is deficient for the reasons stated in the Text Order (ECF No. 7) entered on March 27, 2023. Plaintiff is directed to file his Amended Complaint in compliance with that Order by April 17, 2023. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on March 29, 2023. (smg)
March 27, 2023 Filing 7 TEXT ONLY ORDER REGARDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are not charging him with an offence based on a gun being found in the booking area with his fingerprints on it. Instead, he alleges they have swept it under the rug and are using "their authority against me in other ways." Plaintiff does not describe how he believes Defendants are violating his constitutional rights by means of these other ways. For this reason, Plaintiff is directed to submit an Amended Complaint by April 17, 2023. The Clerk is directed to mail the Plaintiff a court-approved Section 1983 form. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury he suffered. If he fails to do, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.The Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form. Plaintiff may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint. A First Amended Complaint supersedes, or takes the place of, the original Complaint. After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint as nonexistent. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint is waived if it is not raised in the First Amended Complaint. This case shall be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to return the Amended Complaint to the Court by the April 17, 2023, deadline. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on March 27, 2023. (smg)
March 27, 2023 Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Complaint due by 4/17/2023 (lgd)
March 24, 2023 Filing 6 MOTION to Amend #1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) by Jonathan Cole Smith. (Attachments: #1 Amended Complaint)Motions referred to Mark E. Ford.(tg)
March 8, 2023 Filing 5 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form furnished. (lgd)
March 8, 2023 Filing 4 CLERK'S ORDER re PLRA Initial Fee directing Baxter County Jail to collect from petitioner's prison account an initial partial filing fee of $81.80; thereafter to collect monthly payments from petitioner's prison account in amount equal to 20% of preceding month's income credited to account until $ 350 filing fee is paid in full (cc: Baxter County Detention Center). (lgd)
March 8, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (42:1983). ORDER directing the Clerk to file the in forma pauperis (IFP) application and complaint submitted by the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the provisions of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Clerk is directed to collect the $350.00 filing fee from the Plaintiff.Plaintiff is advised that he is required to immediately inform the Court of any change of address. If Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or prison or released, he shall have 30 days from the date of transfer or release in which to notify the Court of the new address. Plaintiff shall submit a change of address on a separate piece of paper entitled Notice to the Court of Change of Address and not include any motions or otherwise request relief in this document. The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the address change. The case will be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to inform the Court of an address change. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on 3/8/2023. (lgd)
March 8, 2023 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (42:1983) by Jonathan Cole Smith. Motions referred to Mark E. Ford.(lgd)
March 8, 2023 Filing 1 COMPLAINT REFERRED (42:1983) against Sebastian Dennis, Jeff Lewis, John Montgomery, filed by Jonathan Cole Smith.(lgd)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arkansas Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Montgomery et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jonathan Cole Smith
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sheriff John Montgomery
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Captain Jeff Lewis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lt. Sebastian Dennis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?