United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael Shane Wilmoth is currently incarcerated in the
Arkansas Department of Correction's ("ADC")
East Arkansas Regional Unit in Brickeys,
Arkansas. He was previously a pre-trial detainee at
the Benton County Detention Center ("BCDC"). During
his detention at the BCDC, he alleges, inter alia,
that Defendant Austin Murphy, a Jail Deputy at the BCDC, used
excessive force against him. Therefore, Mr. Wilmoth filed
this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate
his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive
force. Following the Court's summary judgment
rulings, the excessive force claim against Deputy Murphy was
the sole remaining cause of action. And on July 10, 2018, the
Court appointed Mr. Vincent Chadick to represent Mr. Wilmoth
at trial. (Doc. 110). A final pre-trial hearing was set for
October 9, 2018, and the jury trial was scheduled to commence
on October 31, 2018. (Docs. 120, 121). During the October
9th pre-trial hearing, counsel for both parties
indicated that they were ready for trial.
next two weeks passed without incident. During that period,
and in order to enable Mr. Chadick to make final trial
preparations with his client, a writ of habeas corpus ad
testificandum was issued directing the Warden of the ADC East
Arkansas Regional Unit to produce Wilmoth at the Washington
County Detention Center by 1 p.m. on October 30, 2018.
on October 29, 2018, Mr. Chadick sent an email to the Court
and to opposing counsel stating that he had just learned that
Mr. Wilmoth desired to have him removed as
counsel. He planned to follow-up with Mr. Wilmoth
in person the next day and report back. The following day,
after Mr. Wilmoth was brought to Fayetteville and after Mr.
Chadick had an opportunity to confer with him, Mr. Chadick
informed the Court that Mr. Wilmoth did indeed desire to have
Mr. Chadick removed as counsel and wished to represent
himself at trial. The Court immediately set a status hearing
for 4 p.m.
hearing from counsel for both sides and from Mr. Wilmoth, the
Court found sufficient good cause to grant Mr. Wilmoth's
pro se request for a continuance of the trial. For
instance, it appeared that Mr. Wilmoth and Mr. Chadick had
not yet discussed-much less subpoenaed-witnesses whose
testimony Mr. Wilmoth reasonably believed were relevant and
necessary to his proof at trial. During the hearing, Mr.
Chadick took full responsibility for certain miscommunication
issues with his client and the resulting need for a
continuance and stated on the record that he would personally
reimburse the Court for any expenses incurred because of his
after granting the continuance, the Court sent notice to the
venire panel informing them not to report for trial the next
morning. Fortunately, the Court was able to recall all but
two members of the venire panel. The two members who were not
recalled successfully had already made the journey from
Mountain Home to Fayetteville because of the
distance. These two jurors thus had already incurred
lodging expenses (on the Court's account) for the evening
of October 30. In addition, the Court is obligated to pay
these two veniremen for two days of attendance fees and their
mileage expenses. Overall, the Court has incurred $661.64 in
expenses because of its inability to recall these two members
of the venire panel.
Mr. Chadick's acknowledgments during the October 30
status conference and the Court's finding that he bears
responsibility for the eleventh-hour continuance-and the
resulting inability to recall all the veniremen-the Court now
finds good cause to order Mr. Chadick to reimburse the Clerk
of Court the sum of $661.64.
IS SO ORDERED.
 That unit is approximately 300 miles
from the Fayetteville courthouse.
 The Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial detainees from
"the use of excessive force that amounts to
punishment." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
395 n.10 (1989) (citation omitted).
 Mr. Wilmoth had drafted and mailed to
the Court a formal motion to that effect. That motion was
subsequently received on November 1, 2018 and filed to ...