Bey v. Szabad

E.D. Arkansas

Bey v. Szabad

DecidedSeptember 2, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00183

StatusUnknown

This text of Bey v. Szabad (Bey v. Szabad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bey v. Szabad, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ALI ALI BEY PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT

v. No. 4:24-cv-183-DPM

TRE DAVIS, Patrol Person DEFENDANT

v.

RICHARD SZABAD DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT

ORDER 1. | Szabad’s motion to dismiss is denied. First, construing the pro se complaint liberally, Lamar v. Payne, 111 F.4th 902, 907 n.2 (8th Cir. 2024), Bey has stated a false imprisonment claim. Doc. 5, The strength of that claim can be tested by the factual record on a motion for summary judgment or at trial. Second, Bey has not stated an outrage claim, so Szabad’s arguments against one are misplaced. Third, the Court declines to address Szabad’s “not me” argument because the deposition excerpt is beyond the pleadings. Enervations, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing. Co., 380 F.3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2004).

2. Bey’s recent motion to amend and add two other Bryant police officers, Doc. 30, is denied. The deadline for proposed amended pleadings passed several months ago. Doc. 21 at 1. Plus, Bey did not file a proposed amended complaint for the Court to evaluate, which the Final Scheduling Order requires. Doc. 21 at 2. 3. Bey’s motion to compel discovery is denied. He did not follow the Final Scheduling Order’s requirements for addressing discovery disputes. Doc. 21 at 3. And his interrogatories and requests for production were not served soon enough before the discovery cutoff to allow thirty days for responses. Doc. 32 at J 5. Szabad therefore isn’t required to respond. And Bey’s discovery requests to the two proposed-defendant officers are of no effect. 4, Officer Davis was served more than a year ago but has not appeared, Doc. 15. Bey has taken no steps to pursue any claim against him. Unless Bey requests some relief as to Officer Davis by 6 October 2025, the Court will therefore dismiss him as a defendant. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2).

Motions, Doc. 25, 30, & 31, denied without prejudice. Szabad’s status report, Doc. 26, appreciated. Joint status report due by 6 October 2025.

-2-

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge se Styote wal Aas”

eo

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ALI ALI BEY PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT

v. No. 4:24-cv-183-DPM

TRE DAVIS, Patrol Person DEFENDANT

v.

RICHARD SZABAD DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT

ORDER 1. | Szabad’s motion to dismiss is denied. First, construing the pro se complaint liberally, Lamar v. Payne, 111 F.4th 902, 907 n.2 (8th Cir. 2024), Bey has stated a false imprisonment claim. Doc. 5, The strength of that claim can be tested by the factual record on a motion for summary judgment or at trial. Second, Bey has not stated an outrage claim, so Szabad’s arguments against one are misplaced. Third, the Court declines to address Szabad’s “not me” argument because the deposition excerpt is beyond the pleadings. Enervations, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing. Co., 380 F.3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2004).

2. Bey’s recent motion to amend and add two other Bryant police officers, Doc. 30, is denied. The deadline for proposed amended pleadings passed several months ago. Doc. 21 at 1. Plus, Bey did not file a proposed amended complaint for the Court to evaluate, which the Final Scheduling Order requires. Doc. 21 at 2. 3. Bey’s motion to compel discovery is denied. He did not follow the Final Scheduling Order’s requirements for addressing discovery disputes. Doc. 21 at 3. And his interrogatories and requests for production were not served soon enough before the discovery cutoff to allow thirty days for responses. Doc. 32 at J 5. Szabad therefore isn’t required to respond. And Bey’s discovery requests to the two proposed-defendant officers are of no effect. 4, Officer Davis was served more than a year ago but has not appeared, Doc. 15. Bey has taken no steps to pursue any claim against him. Unless Bey requests some relief as to Officer Davis by 6 October 2025, the Court will therefore dismiss him as a defendant. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2).

Motions, Doc. 25, 30, & 31, denied without prejudice. Szabad’s status report, Doc. 26, appreciated. Joint status report due by 6 October 2025.

-2-

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge se Styote wal Aas”

eo

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bey v. Szabad, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-szabad-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack