Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00001/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

Doc. No. 17.

2

Doc. No. 19.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

TERRY LEE WALKER PLAINTIFF

v. 3:05-CV-00001-WRW

EZRA PIERCE, et al DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 19).

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Complaint “improperly attempts to impose criminal liability

upon the defendants through a civil action,” and that this case should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

On August 22, 2005, I sent Plaintiff a letter which reads:

I have received Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on July 28, 2005, and

it appears to be well taken.

A response was due on August 12, 2005. I assume that since you have not filed a

response, you agree with Defendant’s position. If you choose not to respond by 5:00

p.m. on Wednesday, August 31, 2005, I will grant the motion.1

On August 26, 2005, Plaintiff filed his response to the Motion to Dismiss, which reads, in full, “In

response to your letter dated August 22, 2005, I am unwilling to accept the Motion to Dismiss filed by

the defendant Ezra Pierce, et al.”2

 This response fails to withstand Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion. 

For good cause shown, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2005.

 /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00001-BRW Document 21 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 1