Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas

E.D. Arkansas

Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 7, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-00076

StatusUnknown

This text of Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas (Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas) 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

Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas, (E.D. Ark. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

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

EDDIE THOMAS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 2:19-cv-76-DPM

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS; AT&T CORP; MATTHEW ALBRECHT; RICK SEAWEL; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. This case is a sequel to Thomas v. Wilson, No. 2:18-cv-67-DPM (E.D. Ark. 2018). In the first case, the Court dismissed without prejudice — based on pleading gaps—the same claims against the same defendants that Thomas pleads in this case. No. 2:18-cv-67-DPM, Ne 28. Thomas has added some facts. 2. Thomas says he had an agreement with his former employer, Southwestern Bell, to salvage the company’s abandoned wire. Albrecht, a Southwestern Bell employee, saw Thomas digging up wire and called the Lee County Sheriff’s office. Deputy Wilson arrived. Albrecht told him there was no agreement about salvaging wire. Deputy Wilson said Thomas could put the wire back without being arrested, but Thomas refused. Albrecht contacted Seawel, who wanted Thomas arrested. He was. Deputy Wilson wouldn’t have arrested him if one of the telephone company folks had confirmed the agreement.

The local prosecutor filed criminal charges against Thomas. Those charges were dropped about four years later. As in his 2018 case, Thomas alleges constitutional violations, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. The telephone companies and their employees again seek dismissal. 3. They’re right about the constitutional claims. Thomas still hasn't pleaded any joint activity between Southwestern Bell, AT&T, or their employees and the state actors. The interactions between the telephone companies, their employees, and Deputy Wilson about Thomas and the wire aren’t enough. Murray v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 874 F.2d 555, 558-59 (8th Cir. 1989); West-Anderson v. Missouri Gaming Co., 557 F. App’x 620, 623 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). As in the 2018 case, the Court need not grapple with the limitations question, because Thomas hasn’t stated federal claims. 4, The only remaining claims are for abuse of process and malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. Ordinarily, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims. □□ U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Missouri Roundtable for Life v. Carnahan, 676 F.3d 665, 678 (8th Cir. 2012). But the Court will withhold a final ruling on the motion because of a lurking question. Given what happened in Thomas’s prior case, would declining to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction provided by § 1367(c)(3) result in an adjudication on the merits of his state claims?

-2-

Please consider: ARK. R. CIv. P. 41; Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276, 21, 436 S.W.3d 445, 457 (2014); Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eaton-Moery Environmental Services, Inc., 2011 Ark. 501, 12, 385 S.W.3d 797, 804 (2011); and Smith v. Washington, 340 Ark. 460, 466, 105.W.3d 877, 881 (2000). The Court requests simultaneous letter briefs with the parties’ thoughts on this question on 22 November 2019. So Ordered. Want fo D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 7 Novemkaer 2019

_3-

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 EASTERN DIVISION

EDDIE THOMAS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 2:19-cv-76-DPM

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS; AT&T CORP; MATTHEW ALBRECHT; RICK SEAWEL; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. This case is a sequel to Thomas v. Wilson, No. 2:18-cv-67-DPM (E.D. Ark. 2018). In the first case, the Court dismissed without prejudice — based on pleading gaps—the same claims against the same defendants that Thomas pleads in this case. No. 2:18-cv-67-DPM, Ne 28. Thomas has added some facts. 2. Thomas says he had an agreement with his former employer, Southwestern Bell, to salvage the company’s abandoned wire. Albrecht, a Southwestern Bell employee, saw Thomas digging up wire and called the Lee County Sheriff’s office. Deputy Wilson arrived. Albrecht told him there was no agreement about salvaging wire. Deputy Wilson said Thomas could put the wire back without being arrested, but Thomas refused. Albrecht contacted Seawel, who wanted Thomas arrested. He was. Deputy Wilson wouldn’t have arrested him if one of the telephone company folks had confirmed the agreement.

The local prosecutor filed criminal charges against Thomas. Those charges were dropped about four years later. As in his 2018 case, Thomas alleges constitutional violations, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. The telephone companies and their employees again seek dismissal. 3. They’re right about the constitutional claims. Thomas still hasn't pleaded any joint activity between Southwestern Bell, AT&T, or their employees and the state actors. The interactions between the telephone companies, their employees, and Deputy Wilson about Thomas and the wire aren’t enough. Murray v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 874 F.2d 555, 558-59 (8th Cir. 1989); West-Anderson v. Missouri Gaming Co., 557 F. App’x 620, 623 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). As in the 2018 case, the Court need not grapple with the limitations question, because Thomas hasn’t stated federal claims. 4, The only remaining claims are for abuse of process and malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. Ordinarily, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims. □□ U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Missouri Roundtable for Life v. Carnahan, 676 F.3d 665, 678 (8th Cir. 2012). But the Court will withhold a final ruling on the motion because of a lurking question. Given what happened in Thomas’s prior case, would declining to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction provided by § 1367(c)(3) result in an adjudication on the merits of his state claims?

-2-

Please consider: ARK. R. CIv. P. 41; Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276, 21, 436 S.W.3d 445, 457 (2014); Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eaton-Moery Environmental Services, Inc., 2011 Ark. 501, 12, 385 S.W.3d 797, 804 (2011); and Smith v. Washington, 340 Ark. 460, 466, 105.W.3d 877, 881 (2000). The Court requests simultaneous letter briefs with the parties’ thoughts on this question on 22 November 2019. So Ordered. Want fo D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 7 Novemkaer 2019

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-southwestern-bell-telephone-company-of-arkansas-ared-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack