Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually

E.D. Arkansas

Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually

DecidedMay 13, 2026

Docket4:23-cv-00356

StatusUnknown

This text of Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually (Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually) 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

Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually, (E.D. Ark. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DONALD FRAZIER, JR., a/k/a Donald Muhammad PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-356-DPM

BRADLEY SHELL and MICHAEL MUSGROVE, Individually DEFENDANTS

ORDER The defendants’ motion in limine, Doc. 51, is partly granted and partly denied as specified.

1. Deputy Shell’s “Trayvon Martin” Threat Denied. It’s an opposing parties’ statement, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), relevant to the circumstances, Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73, 76 (2025), and not unfairly prejudicial. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

2. PTSD and Other Similar Medical Conditions Partly granted and partly denied. Frazier can’t testify to potential damages he didn’t disclose in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Caveat: “A compensatory damage award for emotional distress may be based on a plaintiff's own testimony.” Bennett v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 721 F.3d 546, 552 (8th Cir. 2013). Frazier can testify about his alleged

emotional distress. But he isn’t a doctor; so he can’t self-diagnose any medical condition, such as PTSD.

3. Permanent Injuries and Future Pain and Suffering Partly granted and partly denied. Again, Frazier can only testify about matters he provided in discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) (iii), and can’t say whether any non-obvious injury is permanent or predict how it will affect him in the future. He has to establish permanent injuries with reasonable certainty. Handy Dan Home Improvement Center, Inc.-Arkansas v. Peters, 286 Ark. 102, 104, 689 S.W.2d 551, 552 (1985). Frazier can rely on lay testimony (from others and himself) about diagnosed injuries and past suffering for these issues. Volunteer Transport, Inc. v. House, 357 Ark. 95, 103-04, 162 S.W.3d 456, 461 (2004); McGraw v. Jones, 367 Ark. 138, 146-47, 238 S.W.3d 15, 21-22 (2006). And counsel can argue the inference that his pain and suffering will continue. HOWARD W. BRILL & CHRISTIAN H. BRILL, ARKANSAS LAW OF DAMAGES § 29:2 (Nov. 2025 update). But the Court will decide before submission whether Frazier has created jury questions here.

_2-

So Ordered. _NPvgnctoll fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge

~3-

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

DONALD FRAZIER, JR., a/k/a Donald Muhammad PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-356-DPM

BRADLEY SHELL and MICHAEL MUSGROVE, Individually DEFENDANTS

ORDER The defendants’ motion in limine, Doc. 51, is partly granted and partly denied as specified.

1. Deputy Shell’s “Trayvon Martin” Threat Denied. It’s an opposing parties’ statement, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), relevant to the circumstances, Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73, 76 (2025), and not unfairly prejudicial. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

2. PTSD and Other Similar Medical Conditions Partly granted and partly denied. Frazier can’t testify to potential damages he didn’t disclose in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Caveat: “A compensatory damage award for emotional distress may be based on a plaintiff's own testimony.” Bennett v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 721 F.3d 546, 552 (8th Cir. 2013). Frazier can testify about his alleged

emotional distress. But he isn’t a doctor; so he can’t self-diagnose any medical condition, such as PTSD.

3. Permanent Injuries and Future Pain and Suffering Partly granted and partly denied. Again, Frazier can only testify about matters he provided in discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) (iii), and can’t say whether any non-obvious injury is permanent or predict how it will affect him in the future. He has to establish permanent injuries with reasonable certainty. Handy Dan Home Improvement Center, Inc.-Arkansas v. Peters, 286 Ark. 102, 104, 689 S.W.2d 551, 552 (1985). Frazier can rely on lay testimony (from others and himself) about diagnosed injuries and past suffering for these issues. Volunteer Transport, Inc. v. House, 357 Ark. 95, 103-04, 162 S.W.3d 456, 461 (2004); McGraw v. Jones, 367 Ark. 138, 146-47, 238 S.W.3d 15, 21-22 (2006). And counsel can argue the inference that his pain and suffering will continue. HOWARD W. BRILL & CHRISTIAN H. BRILL, ARKANSAS LAW OF DAMAGES § 29:2 (Nov. 2025 update). But the Court will decide before submission whether Frazier has created jury questions here.

_2-

So Ordered. _NPvgnctoll fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge

~3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Donald Frazier, Jr., a/k/a Donald Muhammad v. Bradley Shell and Michael Musgrove, Individually, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-frazier-jr-aka-donald-muhammad-v-bradley-shell-and-michael-ared-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack