Henry v. Franks

Opinion

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

RODNEY HENRY PLAINTIFF

v. No: 3:22-cv-00200-PSH

STEVE FRANKS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Defendants Steve Franks, Robert Case, and Dane Barnum’s Motion for Summary Judgment and related pleadings (Doc. Nos. 28-30) are before the Court. Based on a thorough review of the pleadings and supporting documentation, it appears some additional information would be helpful. Defendants are therefore directed to supplement the record in this case with additional briefing regarding the constitutionality of the Greene County Detention Center’s due process procedure as applied to pretrial detainees. Defendants should specifically address whether that procedure satisfies the requirements set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564–70 (1974); whether it provides for an in-person hearing if an inmate does not waive their right to process, or if not, why its procedure provides a constitutional alternative to an in-person hearing; whether inmates are provided with a written statement of the evidence relied on; and whether an inmate’s refusal to sign the jail’s due process form constitutes a waiver of the inmate’s due process rights. Defendants may submit additional evidence if they desire. They must supplement the record as directed within 14 days. Plaintiff will then have an additional 14 days to respond. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26" day of January, 2024.

UNITED STATES Dh JUDGE