Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00009/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00009-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BRAD PAUL SMITH PLAINTIFF 

ADC #660448 

 

V. NO. 3:24-cv-9-DPM-ERE 

THOMAS HURST, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

Pro se plaintiff Brad Paul Smith has filed: (1) a motion for summary 

judgment; and (2) a motion for order asking about the status of defense counsel 

Rosalyn Middleton. Docs. 51, 53. For the reasons explained below, Mr. Smith’s 

motion for summary judgment is denied. His motion for order is granted. 

I. Motion for Summary Judgment 

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). 

Case 3:24-cv-00009-DPM-ERE Document 55 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

In his motion, Mr. Smith explains that: (1) Defendants “have failed in any way 

to come to a compromise with a settlement offer to the acceptance of the Plaintiff’s 

injuries” (Doc. 51 at 2); (2) Defendants have failed to allow Mr. Smith to view the 

video of the underlying incident; and (3) he objects to the Court allowing Defendants 

additional time to file a motion for summary judgment raising the issue of 

exhaustion. His arguments do not even arguably support a motion for summary 

judgment. He fails to provide any evidence showing 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 against any Defendant. Mr. Smith also fails to provide a 

brief in support of his motion or a statement of undisputed facts, both of which are 

required by this Court’s Local Rules. See Local Rules 7.2 (a) and 56.1. 

In addition, Mr. Smith’s 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.’”).1

 

Discovery is stayed until the Court rules on any motions related to the issue of 

whether Mr. Smith has exhausted his administrative remedies. Once the discovery 

1 The parties have until January 27, 2025, to file dispositive motions raising the issue 

of exhaustion. Doc. 50.

Case 3:24-cv-00009-DPM-ERE Document 55 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

stay is lifted, Mr. Smith may engage in discovery by sending discovery requests to 

counsel for Defendants. 

Finally, a motion for summary judgment is not a proper vehicle for 

complaining that Defendants are refusing to engage in settlement discussions. The 

decision of whether to defend a lawsuit or attempt to settle it is a matter solely for 

Defendants’ discretion in consultation with their counsel. The Court will not 

interfere in that decision. 

II. Motion for Order 

In his motion for order, Mr. Smith requests information regarding the status 

of defense counsel Rosalyn Middleton. Ms. Middleton remains counsel of record for 

Defendants. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51) is DENIED. 

2. Mr. Smith’s motion for order (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. 

SO ORDERED 27 December 2024. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00009-DPM-ERE Document 55 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3