Spears v. Osceola Police Department

E.D. Arkansas

Spears v. Osceola Police Department

DecidedOctober 25, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00069

StatusUnknown

This text of Spears v. Osceola Police Department (Spears v. Osceola Police Department) 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

Spears v. Osceola Police Department, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JAMES SPEARS, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #122695

v. No. 3:22-cv-69-DPM

OSCEOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT; JENNIFER EPHLIN, Former Shift Supervisor, Osceola Police Department; CHRIS VAUGHN, Officer, Osceola Police Department; CATHERINE DEAN, Prosecuting Attorney, Second Judicial District; DAKOTA DUNKIN, Officer, Osceola Police Department; JOHN DOES 1-2, City Mayor of Osceola, Chief of Osceola Police Department; DANIEL G. RITCHEY, Circuit Court Judge, Second Judicial District; RALPH WILSON, JR., Chief Administrative Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Division; CITY OF OSCEOLA, ARKANSAS; DONALD R. BETTERTON, District Judge, Osceola District Court; RODNEY CHEDISTER, Court Appointed Public Defender; DALE COOK, Sheriff, Mississippi County, Arkansas; and JOHN H. BRADLEY, Chief Public Defender DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court screened and dismissed Spears’s complaint. Several claims failed, the Court concluded, as untimely. Doc. 7. Spears moves for reconsideration. His motion is timely. FED. R. CIv. P. 60(c)(1).

The Court made a mistake in its limitations analysis. Spears is correct on this point. While the Clerk received and docketed Spears’s complaint on 21 March 2022, a copy of the related envelope bears a 17 March 2022 post-mark. Compare Doc. 1 at 1, with Doc. 1 at 24. Spears’s complaint is deemed “filed” on that date. His constitutional and state law claims about the 17-18 March 2019 events were therefore timely. Sulik v. Taney County, Missourt, 316 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court, however, stands by its previous Order on all of Spears’s other claims. Doc. 7. The Court vacates its Judgment, Doc. 8, and reopens this case. Spears’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 10, is partly granted and partly denied. The Court will re-screen Spears’s claims related to the 17-18 March 2019 events because they are not barred by the statute of limitations. So Ordered. SP D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge aS Ochhu 202%

-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

JAMES SPEARS, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #122695

v. No. 3:22-cv-69-DPM

OSCEOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT; JENNIFER EPHLIN, Former Shift Supervisor, Osceola Police Department; CHRIS VAUGHN, Officer, Osceola Police Department; CATHERINE DEAN, Prosecuting Attorney, Second Judicial District; DAKOTA DUNKIN, Officer, Osceola Police Department; JOHN DOES 1-2, City Mayor of Osceola, Chief of Osceola Police Department; DANIEL G. RITCHEY, Circuit Court Judge, Second Judicial District; RALPH WILSON, JR., Chief Administrative Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Division; CITY OF OSCEOLA, ARKANSAS; DONALD R. BETTERTON, District Judge, Osceola District Court; RODNEY CHEDISTER, Court Appointed Public Defender; DALE COOK, Sheriff, Mississippi County, Arkansas; and JOHN H. BRADLEY, Chief Public Defender DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court screened and dismissed Spears’s complaint. Several claims failed, the Court concluded, as untimely. Doc. 7. Spears moves for reconsideration. His motion is timely. FED. R. CIv. P. 60(c)(1).

The Court made a mistake in its limitations analysis. Spears is correct on this point. While the Clerk received and docketed Spears’s complaint on 21 March 2022, a copy of the related envelope bears a 17 March 2022 post-mark. Compare Doc. 1 at 1, with Doc. 1 at 24. Spears’s complaint is deemed “filed” on that date. His constitutional and state law claims about the 17-18 March 2019 events were therefore timely. Sulik v. Taney County, Missourt, 316 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 393 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court, however, stands by its previous Order on all of Spears’s other claims. Doc. 7. The Court vacates its Judgment, Doc. 8, and reopens this case. Spears’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 10, is partly granted and partly denied. The Court will re-screen Spears’s claims related to the 17-18 March 2019 events because they are not barred by the statute of limitations. So Ordered. SP D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge aS Ochhu 202%

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Spears v. Osceola Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spears-v-osceola-police-department-ared-2022.