Case law

Stockton v. Reed

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 27, 2024

Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages 4 See also Nichols v. … Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (explaining that clearly baseless facts include those that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional).

Ellis v. Arkansas, State of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 8, 2022

Even if they had, the Court is doubtful that the Ellises, as opposed to their children, would have been qualified to receive services from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. 42 U.S.C. … The Ellises do not clearly raise any claims under the First Amendment.

Jackson v. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2025

established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Bryant’s email does not inform Jackson that he was not qualified; it merely states that he was not selected to interview for the 2019 opening. Id.

Pickens v. Lockhart

542 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1982

Clearly, Plant cannot be faulted for deciding not to open such a dangerous corridor. … He chose instead to rely on “the circumstances of the offense,” i.e., that the proof did not establish that his client fired the fatal shots.

National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co.

965 F. Supp. 1490 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 30, 1996

The Willis study, while it has its inadequacies, clearly supports the defendants’ position. … Sherman was not qualified to testify as an expert. It explained that Dr.

Aaron v. Cooper

169 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 9, 1959

Its duty in this case is clearly defined, and its action is commanded and restricted by the former adjudications. … It had become a way of life in that section of the country and it is not strange that this long-established, cherished practice could not suddenly be changed without resistance.

Harper v. Crockett

868 F. Supp. 1557 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 26, 1994

Discouraging people from coming to work for a department certainly qualifies as disruption.” Id. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1890 . There is no issue regarding pretext in this case. … . § 1983 , “Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, or regulation ... of any state ... subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities

Cowgill v. Shipman

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 2, 2024

North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir. 2002), and the Court must weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. … An inmate’s complaints regarding a “general fear for his safety” do not establish that a defendant “acted with deliberate indifference by not placing him in protective custody.” Robinson v.

Jones v. Ipawn Rodney Parham, LLC

364 F. Supp. 3d 953 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 5, 2019

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that there is a genuine issue to be determined at trial. Prudential Ins. Co. v. … s name is clearly stated on all of the Plaintiffs' pawn ticket[s]." ( Id. , at 8).

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.

920 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 26, 1996

AP & L’s equipment that was located on the Site qualifies as a "facility” under CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (9)(A). 3 . The term "person” is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (21). 4 . … This would clearly be a strange result. Of course, this result could be avoided if PIUVs lawsuit (or, for that matter, PRPl’s lawsuit) was viewed as a contribution action implicitly authorized by § 107(a).

Aaron v. Tucker

186 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 2, 1960

The court clearly recognized that “screening” or pupil assignment procedures were contemplated under the plan. … The effect of the admission of new pupils upon established or proposed academic programs; “4. The suitability of established curricula for particular pupils; “5.

Manson v. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.

42 F. Supp. 2d 856 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 9, 1999

Manson asserts that she can establish a prima facie case of discrimination because: (1) she is a member of a protected class, i.e., she is over forty years old and she is female; (2) she was qualified for the position she … Manson asserts that the reasons defen- • dant puts forward for her termination are clearly pretextual.

Jeffrey v. Salaam

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 23, 2025

City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979, 982, 985 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that the right to be free from retaliatory arrest for yelling “fuck you” at a police officer was “clearly established” such that all reasonable officers … The Court acknowledges, of course, that training on a particular aspect of a right may be necessary even if that aspect of the right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 32 This conclusion is consistent

Bio Gen LLC v. Arkansas, State of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 2023

Sovereign Immunity and Standing Article III of the U.S. … The Eleventh Amendment also bars suits brought against state officials if “the state is the real, substantial party in interest.”24 In Ex Parte Young, the Supreme Court established a significant exception to this immunity

Johnson v. Protech Solutions

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 24, 2025

Johnson’s Complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a party immune to such relief.4 A pro se litigant’s complaint must be construed liberally.5 Nonetheless, the complaint … Johnson does not plead facts to make it plausible that she has a qualifying disability.

Roberts v. Arkansas Department of Workforce Services

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 17, 2019

The Title VII laws establish that a complaining employee must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1994). … This positive performance review clearly does not constitute an adverse employment action, and Roberts has pointed to no other performance appraisal that she believes was arbitrarily low.

Swindler v. Lockhart

739 F. Supp. 1323 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 1990

Subsequent to the hearing, petitioner abandoned his claim that “death qualifying” the jury violated his sixth amendment rights in view of the holding in Lockhart v. … There are no “substantial grounds” present in this case, because respondent’s fourth federal habeas petition clearly constitutes an abuse of the writ. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 9(b); id., § 2244(b)....

Eason v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 2021

The Eighth Circuit has previously held that “prison officials did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by allowing female guards to monitor [male inmates] through surveillance cameras.” Bell v. … courts to screen prisoner complaints, and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Finney v. Hutto

410 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 19, 1976

Administration of the Department, on the other hand, is clearly under the control of white people. … One hopeful sign is the establishment of the rehabilitative programs that have been described.

Ruiz v. Harmon

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 10, 2020

The Court notes, however, that Lieutenant Robins fails to state clearly which provision of Rule 60(b) guarantees him relief. Lieutenant Robins also maintains that Mr. … Franklin Cnty., Ark., 956 F.3d 1060, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2020) (granting qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive- force claims because defendants’ actions did not violate the constitution but remanding state