Hurlbut v. Arkansas Attorney General

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedJune 19, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-00037
StatusUnknown

This text of Hurlbut v. Arkansas Attorney General (Hurlbut v. Arkansas Attorney General) 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
Hurlbut v. Arkansas Attorney General, (E.D. Ark. 2019).

Opinion

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

DANIEL HURLBUT, PLAINTIFF ADC #658898

V. CASE NO. 1:19-CV-37-JM-BD

ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Daniel Hurlbut, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, filed this civil lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) For screening purposes, Mr. Hurlbut has stated a deliberate-indifference claim against Defendant Stieve, as well as against members of the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences (UAMS) Endocrinology Department. Service is proper for Defendant Stieve. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare a summons for Defendant Stieve. The United States Marshal is directed to serve a copy of the complaint (#2), with any attachments, and a summons for Defendant Stieve without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security. Service for Defendant Stieve should be through Humphries, Odom, & Lewis, 1901 Broadway Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. Although Mr. Hurlbut has stated a deliberate-indifference claim against members of the UAMS Endocrinology Department, he has only named UAMS as a Defendant. UAMS is not a party that may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. UAMS v. Adams, 354 Ark. 21, 24, 117 S.W.3d 588, 590 (2003). Accordingly, the Clerk is instructed to terminate UAMS as a party Defendant and to add Doe Defendants, UAMS Endocrinology Department, as Defendants. Mr. Hurlbut has ninety days from the date this lawsuit was filed to identify and serve the UAMS employees who allegedly failed to provide him constitutionally adequate medical care. Because Mr. Hurlbut is proceeding IFP, the Court will order service of process for these Defendants, but Mr. Hurlbut is responsible for providing their names and valid service addresses. He may send discovery requests or use other means to find valid service addresses for Defendants. Mr. Hurlbut is cautioned that failure to timely identify and serve the Doe Defendants will result in dismissal of claims against those Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of June, 2019. Llib —

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences v. Adams
117 S.W.3d 588 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hurlbut v. Arkansas Attorney General, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurlbut-v-arkansas-attorney-general-ared-2019.