Young v. Doe

E.D. Arkansas

Young v. Doe

DecidedJune 27, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00480

StatusUnknown

This text of Young v. Doe (Young v. Doe) 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

Young v. Doe, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JOHN LESLIE YOUNG ADC # 183532 PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 4:24-cv-480-DPM

DOE, Medical Staff (Head of Medical), WellPath, Medical Staff Nurses 1 April 2024-30 April 2024; JEAVON PERRY, Restricted Housing Sergeant, Tucker Unit, ADC; WELLPATH MEDICAL; L. HARRISON, Nurse Practitioner, WellPath Medical, ADC; PHILLIP WHEAT, Inmate, ADC #103677; ANTONIO D. JOHNSON, JR., Building Major, Tucker Unit, ADC; KENJON RANDLE, Deputy Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; TODD BALL, Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; MIKE LISCOMB, Inmate, ADC #550203; JAMES CHANEY, Inmate, ADC #151743; JEREMIAH DUNSON, Inmate, ADC #159376; ODOM, Lt., Isolation, Tucker Unit, ADC; and DALE REED, Deputy Director, ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER The Court adopts the unopposed recommendation, Doc. 43, as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes).

The Magistrate Judge is correct that there is a misjoinder between Young’s medical claims and his many non-medical claims against a host of parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. The Court could sever his non- medical claims for separate decision. If any were going forward, it would do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; 7 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1689 (3d ed. 2025). But the Court sees no need to sever in the circumstances. It’s clear that each non-medical claim fails, in some respect, to state a solid claim. And Young has not accepted the Court's offer to amend. In contrast, Young’s medical claims have some substance. But as the Magistrate Judge concluded, each fails to meet the necessary deliberate indifference and notice standards. Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1178-79 (8th Cir. 2023); S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2015). The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. 4ustall Gx D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge AF Juve A025

-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 CENTRAL DIVISION

JOHN LESLIE YOUNG ADC # 183532 PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 4:24-cv-480-DPM

DOE, Medical Staff (Head of Medical), WellPath, Medical Staff Nurses 1 April 2024-30 April 2024; JEAVON PERRY, Restricted Housing Sergeant, Tucker Unit, ADC; WELLPATH MEDICAL; L. HARRISON, Nurse Practitioner, WellPath Medical, ADC; PHILLIP WHEAT, Inmate, ADC #103677; ANTONIO D. JOHNSON, JR., Building Major, Tucker Unit, ADC; KENJON RANDLE, Deputy Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; TODD BALL, Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; MIKE LISCOMB, Inmate, ADC #550203; JAMES CHANEY, Inmate, ADC #151743; JEREMIAH DUNSON, Inmate, ADC #159376; ODOM, Lt., Isolation, Tucker Unit, ADC; and DALE REED, Deputy Director, ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER The Court adopts the unopposed recommendation, Doc. 43, as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes).

The Magistrate Judge is correct that there is a misjoinder between Young’s medical claims and his many non-medical claims against a host of parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. The Court could sever his non- medical claims for separate decision. If any were going forward, it would do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; 7 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1689 (3d ed. 2025). But the Court sees no need to sever in the circumstances. It’s clear that each non-medical claim fails, in some respect, to state a solid claim. And Young has not accepted the Court's offer to amend. In contrast, Young’s medical claims have some substance. But as the Magistrate Judge concluded, each fails to meet the necessary deliberate indifference and notice standards. Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1178-79 (8th Cir. 2023); S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2015). The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. 4ustall Gx D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge AF Juve A025

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Young v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-doe-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack