Walker v. Ryals

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00558
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

BRIAN LEE WALKER PLAINTIFF #15171035

V. NO. 4:22-cv-00558-ERE

TIM RYALS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Lee Walker’s motion to amend. Doc. 47. In his motion, Mr. Walker states that he seeks to amend his “statement of claim” and asserts that his First Amendment rights have now been violated. Mr. Walker also moves for a Court order compelling Faulkner County Detention Center (“Detention Center”) staff to provide him an inmate handbook and all 36 answered grievance reports. Mr. Walker attaches to his motion two inmate grievance forms and encounter notes from his appointment with MSC Eye Associates. Mr. Walker is proceeding in this case on claims that: (1) Officer Huett failed to protect him from an inmate attack on May 6, 2022; (2) Corporal Barnett used excessive force by tasing him; and (3) Corporal Barnett, Sheriff Tim Ryals, and Chief Deputy Chad Wooley denied him adequate medical care for injuries he sustained in the attack. Doc. 4. Mr. Walker contends that his “first amendment constitutional right has been violated” (Doc. 47 at 1) but he includes no allegations of fact to support his conclusion. Thus, a First Amendment claim, if added, would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a plausible constitutional claim.' It also is unclear what relationship, if any, the proposed new claim has to his pending claims.” For both

reasons, Mr. Walker’s motion to amend is denied. Mr. Walker’s motion and supporting affidavits also request a Court order compelling Detention Center staff to provide him with certain documents. However, it is premature to ask the Court to compel Defendants to produce documents until Mr. Walker has attempted to obtain the documents himself, by sending discovery requests to counsel for Defendants. As previously explained, discovery requests should not be filed with the Court. Only if Mr. Walker is unable to obtain documents through the discovery process, after attempting to resolve any issues by talking to defense counsel, should Mr. Walker file a motion to compel with the Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Mr. Walker’s motion (Doc. 47) is DENIED. Dated this 13th day of January, 2023. MAM

' See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2020) (A complaint “must contain facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law and must not be merely conclusory in its allegations.”). 2 Mr. Walker may not pursue unrelated claims in a single lawsuit. However, he is free to pursue such claims by filing a new lawsuit.