Haire v. Knight

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: May 31, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00750
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

NAPOLEON HAIRE, JR. * #250183, * * Plaintiff, * v. * No. 4:22-cv-00750-JJV * * JASMAINE KNIGHT, Deputy, * Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility * * * Defendant. *

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. DISCUSSION

Napoleon Haire, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that in May 2022, Defendant Deputy Jasmaine Knight violated his constitutional rights by moving him to a more restrictive housing area without a disciplinary hearing and in retaliation for him filing a grievance against her. (Doc. 5.) On April 12, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion asking me to deem their Requests for Admission admitted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a), because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to them. (Docs. 19-20). And on April 14, 2023, I granted that Motion. (Doc. 21.) Thereafter, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the deemed admitted facts. (Docs. 25-27.) Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, but he does not agree with Defendant’s version of the facts. (Docs. 34-36.) Further, Plaintiff says in his Traverse that Defendant’s Request for Admissions should not have been deemed admitted because he never received them, and I ruled on Defendant’s Motion before he had sufficient time to respond. (Doc. 39.) I construe those 1 statements to be a request that the admissions be withdrawn. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“a court, on motion” may permit withdrawal of admitted facts “if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits”); Stine Seed Co. v. A & W Agribusiness, LLC, 862 F.3d 1094, 1102 (8th Cir. 2017) (construing “on motion,” as used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b), to

“encompass court filings that are not formal motions”). I find Plaintiff’s objections to my ruling to be well founded. It also appears from the pleadings Plaintiff has experienced problems with the prison mailing system that have prevented him from timely completing discovery. Thus, after careful consideration, I conclude that withdrawing my April 14, 2023 Order will allow the parties to complete discovery on the facts which are clearly disputed, promote presentation of the merits of this action, and prevent both sides from being unduly prejudiced by a premature ruling. II. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. The April 14, 2023 Order (Doc. 21) granting Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admitted (Doc. 19) is VACATED. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) are DENIED as premature. 3. The parties have until July 14, 2023 to complete discovery and August 18, 2023 to re-file, if they so choose, any dispositive motions. 4. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal of this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith.

2 DATED this 31st day of May 2023. Wo J LPE STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE