United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
REGINALD L. DUNAHUE, ADC #106911 PLAINTIFF
RANDY WATSON, Warden, Varner Super Max Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS
Reginald Dunahue ("Dunahue") has filed this pro
se ' 1983 action alleging that, on or about July 19,
2015, Defendants used excessive force against him, failed to
provide him with adequate medical care for his injuries,
denied him adequate nutrition, and exposed him to toxic
vapors. Doc. 7.
are four non-dispositive Motions pending, which the Court
will address separately.
Dunahue's Motion For an Extension of Time
October 23, 2017, Dunahue filed a Motion for an Extension of
Time to provide a service address for Defendant Sergeant
Sedrick Foote ("Foote") and Lieutenant John
Herrington ("Herrington"), both of whom no longer
work for the Arkansas Department of Correction. Doc.
31. The Motion is denied, as moot, because: (1) the
Court has not imposed a deadline for Dunahue to provide
service information for either Defendant; (2) on October 26,
2017, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal to attempt service
on Herrington at his sealed private address; and (3) on
November 8, 2017, Foote filed an Answer. Docs. 37 &
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, a Brief in
Support, and a Statement of Facts arguing that some of
Dunahue's claims should be dismissed, without prejudice,
because he failed to properly exhaust his administrative
remedies as to those claims. Docs. 32, 33, & 34.
summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest upon mere
allegations and, instead, must meet proof with proof.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This means that
Dunahue's Response should include his legal arguments, as
well as affidavits, prison records, or other evidence
establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact
that must be resolved at a hearing or trial. Furthermore,
pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Dunahue's Response must be
accompanied by a separate document captioned “Statement
of Disputed Facts”, which specifically identifies: (a)
any disagreement he has with the numbered factual assertions
in Defendants' Statement of Undisputed
Facts (Doc. 33); and (b) any other
disputed facts that he believes must be resolved at a hearing
if Dunahue intends to rely on documents that have been
previously filed in the record, he must specifically refer to
those documents by docket number, page, date, and heading.
The Court will not sift through the file to find support for
Plaintiff's factual contentions. See Crossley v.
Georgia-Pacific, Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 (8th Cir.
2004) (affirming the grant of summary judgment because a
plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of the
record that supported his position).
Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order
have filed a Motion seeking a Protective Order that stays all
discovery until there is final ruling on their pending Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. Doc. 35. The Court
finds good cause for granting that Motion as to the merits of
Dunahue's claims, but not as to any documents or
information Dunahue may need to properly respond to the
pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
the Motion for a Protective Oder is granted, as modified.
Discovery in this case is stayed, with the exception of any
documents or information related to Dunahue's attempts to
exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the claims
raised in this lawsuit. The stay will be lifted, in a
separate Order, after a final ruling on Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is entered.
THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Dunahue's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc.