# Hughes v. Haynes

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · June 3, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11064588

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 3, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11064588

## Opinion text

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

BRIAN RAMON HUGHES PLAINTIFF
ADC #119986

V. NO. 4:24-cv-00932-BSM-ERE

HAYNES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Brian Ramon Hughes has filed: (1) a motion for default
judgment against Defendants Haynes, Brown, and Malone; and (2) a motion for
summary judgment. Docs. 33, 34. For the following reasons, Mr. Hughes’ motions
are denied.
1. Motion for Default Judgment
Although Mr. Hughes requests that the Court enter a default judgment against
Defendants Haynes, Brown, and Malone, those Defendants have not yet been served.
As a result, no factual or legal basis exists to find that any of these Defendants are
in default.
On December 9, 2024, summonses were returned unexecuted for these
Defendants. Docs. 17, 18, 19. ADC officials provided Defendants Brown and
Malone’s last-known addresses to the Court under seal. Docs. 18, 19. ADC officials
were unable to identify Defendant Haynes. Doc. 17. The next day, the notice of the
bankruptcy stay was filed. Doc. 21. As a result, the Court has not yet re-issued
summonses for those Defendants. The Court will re-issue summonses for

Defendants Malone and Brown now. The Court will attempt to contact Wellpath
representatives in an attempt to serve Defendant Haynes.
2. “Motion for Summary Judgment”

Mr. Hughes’ motion, although styled as a motion for summary judgment, is
mistitled. His motion fails to contain the minimum requirements for such a motion.
In addition, the filing of summary judgment motions is premature.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). The moving party
bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party must
present specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(c); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Hughes’ motion fails to include any evidence even arguably suggesting
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that he is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law as to any of his pending claims. Mr. Hughes also fails
to provide a brief in support of his motion, which is required by this Court’s Local
Rules. See Local Rule 7.2 (a).
In addition, Mr. Hughes’ motion is premature. At this time, the parties have
not had an opportunity to engage in discovery. See Jackson v. Reibold, 815 F.3d
1114, 1121 (8th Cir. 2016) (“The general rule is that summary judgment is
appropriate ‘only after the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery.””).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Mr. Hughes’ motion for default judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
2. Mr. Hughes’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 34) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is instructed to prepare new summonses for Defendants
Stephen Brown and L. Malone.
4. The United States Marshal is directed to serve the reissued summons,
the complaint and the amended complaint (Docs. 2, 5), including any attachments,
and a copy of this Order without requiring prepayment of fees or costs. Service
should be attempted at these Defendants’ last-known private home addresses,
provided to the Court under seal. Importantly, these addresses must be redacted from
the return of service and from any other public portion of the record.
SO ORDERED 3 June 2025.
J, IM Zlyvw_.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11064588. Public record. Not legal advice.