Flemons v. Bolden
This text of Flemons v. Bolden (Flemons v. Bolden) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
AARON ANTHONY FLEMONS ADC # 119749 PLAINTIFF
No. 5:18-cv-73-DPM
GLENDA BOLDEN, Security Officer, EARU, ADC; DARYL MORRIS, Security Officer, EARU, ADC; WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC; KEITH WADDLE; and DANIEL GOLDEN DEFENDANTS
ORDER Motion to amend, Ne 79, denied. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Justice doesn’t require allowing an amendment at this late stage. The Court will, however, consider Flemons’s proposed amendment as an affidavit in support of his summary judgment response. In particular, it includes more facts, provided under oath, about Flemons’s time in punitive isolation. Ne 79 at 7-8. And though this testimony is self-serving, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily insufficient. United States v. Dico, Inc., 136 F.3d 572, 579 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court therefore returns this case to the Magistrate Judge for a supplemental recommendation on Flemons’s Eighth Amendment claims in light of the new material.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge le Avast 2014
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Flemons v. Bolden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flemons-v-bolden-ared-2019.