Evridge v. Putnam

E.D. Arkansas

Evridge v. Putnam

DecidedAugust 25, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00121

StatusUnknown

This text of Evridge v. Putnam (Evridge v. Putnam) 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

Evridge v. Putnam, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

BOYD EVRIDGE PLAINTIFF

No. 3:23-cv-121-DPM

KRISTI PUTNAM, in her Official Capacity as Director, Arkansas Department of Human Services DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court agrees with Director Putnam that the Department's corrective action has mooted Evridge’s claims. As to him, the registry has been corrected and his former potential employers notified. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013); Brazil v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 892 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2018). No substantial likelihood exists that a future employer will be notified that Evridge is on the registry. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 12-18-906, -910(a) & (f); Brazil, 892 F.3d at 960. There seems to be no dispute that the Department stumbled by notifying the two prospective employers. He does not seek damages. And because there’s no real prospect that Evridge will be harmed again, he no longer has standing to pursue a declaration against the Department. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 9, granted. Evridge’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. So Ordered.

SPrVpaeholl p. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge AS Avqvat 2023

_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 NORTHERN DIVISION

BOYD EVRIDGE PLAINTIFF

No. 3:23-cv-121-DPM

KRISTI PUTNAM, in her Official Capacity as Director, Arkansas Department of Human Services DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court agrees with Director Putnam that the Department's corrective action has mooted Evridge’s claims. As to him, the registry has been corrected and his former potential employers notified. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013); Brazil v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 892 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2018). No substantial likelihood exists that a future employer will be notified that Evridge is on the registry. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 12-18-906, -910(a) & (f); Brazil, 892 F.3d at 960. There seems to be no dispute that the Department stumbled by notifying the two prospective employers. He does not seek damages. And because there’s no real prospect that Evridge will be harmed again, he no longer has standing to pursue a declaration against the Department. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 9, granted. Evridge’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. So Ordered.

SPrVpaeholl p. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge AS Avqvat 2023

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Evridge v. Putnam, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evridge-v-putnam-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack