Stutesman v. Karas Health et al
| Harry C. Stutesman |
| Det. Cody Strange, Det. Levine Garrett, Det. Tommy Wooten, Michael Roberson, Nancy Prior, Mathew Durrett, Candace L. Taylor, Judge Mark Lindsey, Det. Wright, Det. Wilson, Karas Health, WCDC, Washington County, Springdale Police Dept., City of Springdale, Fayetteville P.D., City of Fayetteville, Detective Garrett Levine and Kelley Hinely |
| 5:2022cv05124 |
| June 27, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas |
| Timothy L Brooks |
| Christy D Comstock |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 THE DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO COURT USERS AND CASE PARTICIPANTS. Summons Issued as to Kelley Hinely, Karas Health and USM285 Form(s) Delivered to USMS for each defendant for whom summons was issued with the following documents attached: re #11 Order Directing Service, #10 Amended Complaint, #4 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form. (lgd) |
Filing 11
ORDER DIRECTING THE MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE Kelley Hinely, Karas Health and granting 21 days to answer. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on August 19, 2022. (cc: U.S. Marshals Service-Certified).(lgd)
|
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT as to #1 Complaint Referred (42:1983), against Kelley Hinely, et al, filed by Harry C. Stutesman. (lgd) |
| Set Deadlines: Amended Complaint due by 8/15/2022 (tg) |
| Filing 9 TEXT ONLY ORDER REGARDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY. The Court notes the Complaint is deficient in the following respects: (1) it fails to specifically indicate how each Defendant personally violated the Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; (2) Plaintiff names Detective Wright and Detective Wilson as working for the Springdale Police Department, and names the City of Springdale as a Defendant but then indicates the arrest in question occurred in Finger Park in Fayetteville; (3) Plaintiff names Karas Health as a Defendant but does not identify any individual who was personally involved in his medical care and treatment.For these reasons, Plaintiff is directed to submit an Amended Complaint by August 15, 2022. 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 August 15, 2022, deadline. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on July 25, 2022. (smg) |
| Filing 8 TEXT ONLY ORDER Directing the Clerk to change the style of the case and the case participant name to reflect the correct name of the Defendant as set forth in the #1 Complaint Referred (42:1983). The name of Defendant Detective Levine Garrett should be changed to Detective Garrett Levine. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on July 25, 2022. (smg) |
| Filing 7 TEXT ONLY ORDER denying #6 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A civil litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil action but the Court may appoint counsel at its discretion. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). The Court has considered the need for an attorney, the likelihood that Plaintiff will benefit from assistance of counsel, the factual and legal complexity of the case, and whether Plaintiff has the ability to investigate and present this case. In considering these factors, the Court finds that the claims do not appear legally or factually complex, and Plaintiff is adequately prosecuting this case at this time. The Court finds Plaintiff is capable of prosecuting his claims without appointed counsel. The Court notes that this case is in the early stages. In fact, the Court has not yet determined if the Complaint should be served on Defendants. Therefore, there is little need to appoint counsel at this time. At a later stage in the case, Plaintiff may again request appointment of counsel if Plaintiff believes the circumstances justify such an appointment. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on July 8, 2022. (smg) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Harry C. Stutesman. Motions referred to Christy D. Comstock.(lgd) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S ORDER re PLRA Initial Fee directing Sheriff, Washington County to collect from petitioner's prison account an initial partial filing fee of $4.57; thereafter to collect monthly payments from petitioner's prison account in amount equal to 20% of preceding month's income credited to account until $ 350.00 filing fee is paid in full (cc: Sheriff, Washington County). (tg) |
| Filing 4 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form Furnished. (tg) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (42:1983). 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. WCDC, Fayetteville P.D. and Springdale Police Dept. terminated. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on June 27, 2022. (tg)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (42:1983) by Harry C. Stutesman. Motions referred to Christy D. Comstock.(tg) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT REFERRED (42:1983) against City of Fayetteville, City of Springdale, Mathew Durrett, Fayetteville P.D., Levine Garrett, Karas Health, Mark Lindsey, Nancy Prior, Michael Roberson, Springdale Police Dept., Cody Strange, Candace L. Taylor, WCDC, Washington County, Wilson and Tommy Wooten, filed by Harry C. Stutesman.(tg) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
