Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

On this 3 day of April 2006, the above referenced matter rd

comes on for consideration of Separate Defendant Linda Adams's

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 56). The Court,

being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005; and, then filed an amended complaint herein on November 9,

2005, naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel

Earl Clarida, Danny Hickman, Richard Bogue, Linda Adams, and Zeola

Yeager. 

2. Separate Defendant Linda Adams (“Adams”) now moves to

dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (hereinafter

referred to as the "Complaint") as against her and, in her motion,

argues that plaintiffs' complaint, as asserted against her, should

be dismissed on two grounds: 

* first, by reason of there having been a failure of service

on her pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5); and

* second, by reason of the failure of the complaint to state

a claim against her on which relief can be granted -- as required

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

3. The Court will first address Adams's substantive Rule

12(b)(6) argument, since it will be dispositive of the motion. 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
 Except for bracketed omissions, the Court has not attempted to edit the 1

language used in the Complaint. 

-2-

Based upon a review of the plaintiffs' lengthy complaint, it

appears that the following allegations therein are directed 1

against Adams, who is a Court Reporter with the Fourteenth

Judicial District of Arkansas, which encompasses Boone County,

Arkansas: 

* Plaintiff Bishop Vaughn, Sr. tendered money order

during regular business hours for Plaintiff filing of

appeal in Boone County, but clerks and Court Reporter

Linda Adams refused to receive payment denying Plaintiff

right of due process. (Complaint, ¶ 27)

* Defendant Adams stated that money had to be paid to

the court reporter for transcript before one hundred

dollars for appeals filing would be accepted for appeal.

(Complaint, ¶ 28)

* the defendants actions and omissions, lack of

training and supervision concerning the review of arrest

warrants and the verification of identifying information

prior to initiating apprehension and arrest of persons

believed to be subject of an arrest warrant was

substantially likely to lead to the deprivation of the

constitutional rights of the plaintiff and others;

(Complaint, ¶¶ 37, 47)

* Linda Adams [and all other defendants] . . . had

policies and practices in place which were grossly

inadequate when it came to initiating writ of execution

and the person or persons believed to be the subject of

a judgment. Defendant's had nothing in place to verify

identifying information or to secure against the

wrongful execution or judgment of innocent citizens;

(Complaint, ¶ 38)

* Linda Adams [and all other defendants] . . . failed

to provide minimally acceptable standards of management,

control, recruitment, appointment, training,

supervision, retention, review and or discipline of the

officers of their agencies and or in the creation and

implementation of the policies involving arrest and

detention procedures, specifically with regard to

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

reviewing arrest warrants and identification of persons

arrested and detained or in the alternative, countenance

violations of such established procedures. Furthermore,

prior and subsequent to the arrest of plaintiff, persons

with policy making authority knew of the

unconstitutional conduct causing plaintiff to be

unlawfully arrested and ratified the unconstitutional

proceedings by failing to take immediate directive

action; (Complaint, ¶ 129)

* As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of .

. . Linda Adams [and all other defendants] . . .

Plaintiff was imprisoned against her will and suffered

humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, harassment,

nervousness, loss of sleep and loss of enjoyment of

life; (Complaint, ¶ 133)

4. When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court “must

accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and all

reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of

the nonmoving party.” Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623,

627 (8th Cir. 2001). Although dismissal for failure to state a

claim can only be granted when it appears beyond a reasonable

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a

claim entitling him to relief, “dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

serves to eliminate actions which are fatally flawed in their

legal premises and deigned to fail, thereby sparing litigants the

burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity.” Young, 244

F.3d at 627. 

5. The Court will attempt to address Adams’ motion in the

context of the portions of plaintiffs’ complaint to which it is

directed.

(a) With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs

27 and 28 concerning the appeal fee, Adams argues: 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 4 of 6

* that she is not authorized to accept a notice of appeal

for filing; 

* that the Arkansas court rules require the appealing party

to order the transcript and make financial arrangements for the

transcript prior to filing a notice of appeal; and

* that, although she requested that a money order to be made

out differently, she accepted the money order from the plaintiffs

for payment of the transcript. 

Adams also argues that plaintiffs were ultimately successful

in filing their appeal, as evidenced by the file-marked Notice of

Appeal attached to Adams’s Brief. 

(b) With respect to the remaining allegations asserted

against her, Adams argues that they simply fail to state a claim,

as they relate to matters which fall outside her authority or

control as a Court Reporter. She contends that it is “beyond

reason” to conclude “that a court reporter would participate in

developing policies involving writs of execution or arrest and

detention procedures, for managing or disciplining police

officers, for reviewing arrest warrants to guard against

misidentification, or for causing someone to be imprisoned.”

(Adams’s Brief, p. 5)

(c) Plaintiffs’ response to Adams’ motion essentially

consists of their argument that Adams improperly attached an

exhibit to her brief in support of her motion to dismiss. They

contend that the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit

for additional evidence to be included with or attached to FRCP

Rule 12(b)(6) motion”. (Plaintiffs’ response, ¶ 5). 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 5 of 6

The Court notes that the only exhibit attached to Adams’s

motion is a file-marked copy of a Notice of Appeal filed by

Crystal Leann ”Clarida” Fitzwater in the Circuit Court of Boone

County, Arkansas. 

As argued by Adams’ brief, the Court may take judicial notice

of public records and may consider them in ruling on a motion to

dismiss. See Stahl v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 327 F.3d 697,

700 (8 Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the exhibit in question was not th

improperly attached to Adams’ brief and can properly be considered

by the Court in ruling on the instant motion. 

As previously noted, plaintiffs make no other response to

Adams’ contentions and arguments.

6. Viewing the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint in the

light most favorable to them and according thereto all reasonable

inferences to which they are entitled, the Court concludes that

the complaint fails to state a claim against Adams on which relief

could properly be granted. 

Considering plaintiffs’ assertions; Adams’ un-rebutted

contentions concerning them; and the applicable law; it appears to

the Court that the actions taken by Adams concerning the appeal

fee and transcript payment were authorized by law and that all

other matters complained of were obviously outside her control as

a Court Reporter for the Fourteenth Judicial District of Arkansas.

Accordingly, the concludes that Adams’ motion is good and that it

should be granted.

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 6 of 6

7. In light of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary

to discuss Adams’ first basis to support the granting of her

motion to dismiss.

IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

Separate Defendant Linda Adams's Motion to Dismiss First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 56) should be, and it hereby is, granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to separate defendant Linda

Adams, plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 108 Filed 04/03/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>