Doe v. University of Arkansas

W.D. Arkansas

Doe v. University of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 14, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-03012

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Doe v. University of Arkansas, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JANE DOE PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:24-cv-1111-DPM

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Doe’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted for good cause. 2. Doe’s second complaint is similar to her first one. She does not name Marion County and Marion County Coroner Jim Collins as defendants in the case style. But she calls them defendants repeatedly and describes their alleged mishandling of her father’s death and remains in detail. Doe amplifies her allegations about lost funeral benefits from the Veterans Administration. She now names the University of Arkansas and the State of Arkansas as defendants, alleging that the university has an unclaimed-bodies program for research, and that her father’s body was categorized as such for profit by the university, the State, Coroner Collins, and Marion County. She also mentions that the State interfered with a FEMA claim about storm damage to her father’s property. All this, she says, adds up toa RICO violation, conspiracy, and fraud. In her first case, she is pursuing

due process and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims based on most of these facts. The core of Doe’s two lawsuits is the same: How all those involved addressed her father’s death and handled his body. All the events occurred in the Western District of Arkansas, not the Eastern District. The interest of justice, and the efficient adjudication of cases, favor transfer to the Western District. Venue is proper there. And Doe’s new claims build on her existing claims. On its own motion, the Court therefore directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this case immediately to the Western District of Arkansas, Harrison Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Nine Mile Limited, 673 F.2d 242 (8th Cir. 1982). So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 14 Felrmy adas

~2-

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

JANE DOE PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:24-cv-1111-DPM

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Doe’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted for good cause. 2. Doe’s second complaint is similar to her first one. She does not name Marion County and Marion County Coroner Jim Collins as defendants in the case style. But she calls them defendants repeatedly and describes their alleged mishandling of her father’s death and remains in detail. Doe amplifies her allegations about lost funeral benefits from the Veterans Administration. She now names the University of Arkansas and the State of Arkansas as defendants, alleging that the university has an unclaimed-bodies program for research, and that her father’s body was categorized as such for profit by the university, the State, Coroner Collins, and Marion County. She also mentions that the State interfered with a FEMA claim about storm damage to her father’s property. All this, she says, adds up toa RICO violation, conspiracy, and fraud. In her first case, she is pursuing

due process and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims based on most of these facts. The core of Doe’s two lawsuits is the same: How all those involved addressed her father’s death and handled his body. All the events occurred in the Western District of Arkansas, not the Eastern District. The interest of justice, and the efficient adjudication of cases, favor transfer to the Western District. Venue is proper there. And Doe’s new claims build on her existing claims. On its own motion, the Court therefore directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this case immediately to the Western District of Arkansas, Harrison Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Nine Mile Limited, 673 F.2d 242 (8th Cir. 1982). So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 14 Felrmy adas

~2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. University of Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-university-of-arkansas-arwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack