Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dunahue v. Hobbs

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

November 26, 2014

REGINALD L. DUNAHUE ADC #106911, PLAINTIFF
v.
RAY HOBBS, et al., DEFENDANTS

Reginald L Dunahue, ADC #106911, Pro se, Grady, AR.

PARTIAL RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH M. DEERE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Partial Recommended Disposition (" Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation.

Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong and describe the evidence that supports that belief.

An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. A copy will be furnished to the opposing party.

If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

Mail all objections to:

Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

II. Discussion:

Reginald Dunahue, an Arkansas Department of Correction (" ADC") inmate, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Docket entry #1) Because his complaint included multiple, unrelated claims and was nearly two-hundred pages long, including attachments, the Court ordered Mr. Dunahue to amend his complaint to include a short, plain statement setting out one claim. (#5) Mr. Dunahue filed an amended complaint, but problems remained. (#8)

In his first amended complaint, Mr. Dunahue again included a variety of unrelated claims spanning more than two years of his confinement. The Court again warned Mr. Dunahue that he could not proceed on all of those claims in one lawsuit. Mr. Dunahue was instructed to file a second amended complaint containing only one constitutional claim. He has now filed his second amended complaint.

In his second amended complaint, Mr. Dunahue again includes a number of unrelated claims. As a result, the Court recommends that Mr. Dunahue be allowed to proceed only on excessive-force claims against Defendants May, Hobbs, Jackson, Harris, Meinzer, Banks, Watson, Wright, Plummer, Litzsey, Andrews, Lundy, and Footes in this lawsuit.[1] Mr. Dunahue should not be barred from bringing his other, unrelated claims, but he should not be permitted to include them in this lawsuit. Allowing multiple, unrelated claims that span many years in one lawsuit would create unreasonable confusion in every aspect of the case.

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Dunahue be allowed to proceed on excessive-force claims against Defendants Larry May, Ray Hobbs, Moses Jackson, Grant Harris, Curtis Meinzer, James Banks, Randy Watson, Lieutenant Wright, Lieutenant Plummer, Lieutenant Litzsey, Lieutenant Andrews, Sergeant Lundy, and Sergeant Foote. His remaining claims, however, should be DISMISSED, without prejudice. M. Allen should be terminated as a party Defendant because allegations against him relate to claims that should not be included in this lawsuit.[2]


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.