Russell v. Pilgreen ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ERIC DEMOND RUSSELL PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:22-cv-4024 DETECTIVE KELLY PILGREEN, Bi-State Narcotics Task Force; LIEUTENANT NICHOLAS ELROD, Bi-State Narcotics Task Force; DETECTIVE JESSE MATHIS, Bi-State Narcotics Task Force; and DETECTIVE MICHAEL BEYAN, Bi-State Narcotics Task Force DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case. ECF No. 17. Defendants have responded in opposition. ECF No. 18. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff brought claims against all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. This Court previously adopted a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) that recommended that this case be stayed and administratively terminated pending the results of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff that were closely related to his § 1983 claims. ECF No. 15. The order adopting the Report and Recommendation stipulated that Plaintiff would have thirty (30) days after the final resolution of the pending criminal trial to file a motion to reopen this case. The Court stated that failure to reopen the case by the deadline would result in “summary dismissal” of this matter. Defendants’ response in opposition to the instant motion argues that Plaintiff failed to adhere to the deadline set by the Court. ECF No. 18, p. 1-2. Defendants note that Plaintiff’s criminal case was adjudicated and finalized on August 29, 2022, pursuant to a plea deal signed by Plaintiff. ECF No. 18-1. Plaintiff mailed the instant motion on October 6, 2022. Therefore, Defendants contend that Plaintiff missed this Court’s stipulated deadline and that the instant motion must be denied and this matter dismissed. The Court finds that Defendants are correct that Plaintiff failed to adhere to the Court’s required deadline for moving to reopen this matter. The Court explicitly stated that failure to adhere to the set deadline would result in dismissal of this matter.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 0F to Reopen Case (ECF No. 17) is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of November, 2022. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge 1 The Court has determined that Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the deadline to move to reopen this matter is sufficient cause to deny the instant motion and dismiss this matter. Therefore, the Court will not address Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims being barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).