Hall v. Bell

E.D. Arkansas

Hall v. Bell

DecidedApril 21, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00014

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. Bell (Hall v. Bell) 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

Hall v. Bell, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

SYLVESTER C. HALL PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:25-cv-14-DPM

JOHN BELL; TODD MURRAY; PHIL REYNOLDS; MICHAEL LADD; CHRIS MORLEDGE; and BOOKER PENNINGTON DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Hall amended his complaint as a matter of course in March. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). He filed a second amended complaint in April, which came less than 21 days after Bell moved to dismiss his claims. Doc. 18. While both amendments were timely under Rule 15(a)(1), Hall can only amend his complaint “once” as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases,” like his April amendment, he may do so only with the Court’s leave or the defendants’ consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). There are no exceptions for pro se litigants. Miller-Bey v. Williams, 2021 WL 3286666, at *2 (E.D. Mo. 2 Aug. 2021). The Court therefore directs the Clerk to strike Hall’s second amended complaint, Doc. 18, from the docket. Hall’s original complaint, as amended by Doc. 6, is the operative complaint. Anderson v. Hobbs, 2012 WL 1950420 (E.D. Ark. 29 May 2012). 2. | Reynolds’s unopposed motion to answer out of time, Doc. 9, is granted for good cause. His answer is due by 25 April 2025. 3. Twoservice issues remain. First, Hall’s amended complaint must be served on the newly named defendant, Booker Pennington. The Clerk must issue summons to Pennington using the address Hall provided in Doc. 6. The Clerk must provide copies of the summons, the complaint, the amended complaint, and this Order to the Marshal, who is directed to serve process by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, without prepayment of fees. Second, the Marshal was unable to serve Ladd, Morledge, and Murray using the addresses Hall provided in Doc. 1. Hall must provide proper service addresses for these defendants by 9 May 2025. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). If he doesn’t, the Court will dismiss them as defendants. 4. _ Bell’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 12, remains pending. So Ordered. ATIP sto Ll” A. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 21 April 2025

-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

SYLVESTER C. HALL PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:25-cv-14-DPM

JOHN BELL; TODD MURRAY; PHIL REYNOLDS; MICHAEL LADD; CHRIS MORLEDGE; and BOOKER PENNINGTON DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Hall amended his complaint as a matter of course in March. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). He filed a second amended complaint in April, which came less than 21 days after Bell moved to dismiss his claims. Doc. 18. While both amendments were timely under Rule 15(a)(1), Hall can only amend his complaint “once” as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases,” like his April amendment, he may do so only with the Court’s leave or the defendants’ consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). There are no exceptions for pro se litigants. Miller-Bey v. Williams, 2021 WL 3286666, at *2 (E.D. Mo. 2 Aug. 2021). The Court therefore directs the Clerk to strike Hall’s second amended complaint, Doc. 18, from the docket. Hall’s original complaint, as amended by Doc. 6, is the operative complaint. Anderson v. Hobbs, 2012 WL 1950420 (E.D. Ark. 29 May 2012). 2. | Reynolds’s unopposed motion to answer out of time, Doc. 9, is granted for good cause. His answer is due by 25 April 2025. 3. Twoservice issues remain. First, Hall’s amended complaint must be served on the newly named defendant, Booker Pennington. The Clerk must issue summons to Pennington using the address Hall provided in Doc. 6. The Clerk must provide copies of the summons, the complaint, the amended complaint, and this Order to the Marshal, who is directed to serve process by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, without prepayment of fees. Second, the Marshal was unable to serve Ladd, Morledge, and Murray using the addresses Hall provided in Doc. 1. Hall must provide proper service addresses for these defendants by 9 May 2025. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). If he doesn’t, the Court will dismiss them as defendants. 4. _ Bell’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 12, remains pending. So Ordered. ATIP sto Ll” A. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 21 April 2025

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Bell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-bell-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack