Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06009/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06009-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

ROBERT S. JOHNSON, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6009

 

MELVIN STEED, Garland

County Detention Center DEFENDANT

ORDER

On December 18, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to

recuse or disqualify the defendants’ counsel (Doc. 11), which

motion was denied by an Order entered on December 19, 2006.

(Doc. 13). The Court has now reconsidered the said motion and,

for reasons hereinafter set forth, the said Order entered on

December 19th is hereby set aside. 

1. Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on March 20, 2006. He proceeds pro se and in

forma pauperis. 

In the complaint (Doc. 1) and addendum (Doc. 8), Johnson

alleges that while incarcerated at the Garland County Detention

Center his constitutional rights were violated in the following

ways: (1) he was denied access to the law library; (2) the

grievance procedure was inadequate; (3) he was subjected to

verbal abuse; and (4) he was subjected to unconstitutional

conditions of confinement. 

2. In the motion to recuse, Johnson contends that

defendants’ counsel, Ralph Ohm, has a conflict of interest

because he was the district judge who handled Johnson’s

arraignment on harassment charges filed by Captain Melvin Steed

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

and Deputy David Shelby. Johnson states that Judge Ralph Ohm

found Johnson to be indigent, appointed him a public defender,

and set the case for trial.

In response, defendants admit their counsel (Mr. Ohm) also

serves as a part-time district court judge. However, they state

that he merely arraigned Johnson, found him to be indigent,

appointed him a public defender, and set the case for trial

before the Honorable Marcia Hernsberger, Garland County District

Court Judge, Division I. Following the arraignment, defendants

state their counsel had no other contact with the plaintiff

concerning his criminal case. Based on the foregoing,

defendants say their counsel should not be disqualified from

representing them in this matter.

It appears to the Court that defendants assume plaintiff’s

motion is based on his belief that defendants’ counsel may

become a necessary witness in the case. With respect to that

assumption, defendants argue that their counsel can only be

disqualified under Rule 3.7 of the Arkansas Rules of

Professional Conduct if his testimony is going to be material

and cannot be obtained elsewhere. See e.g., Weigel v. Farmers

Ins. Co., Inc., 356 Ark. 617, 158 S.W.3d 147 (2004). They argue

that the situation here is not such that would require Mr. Ohm’s

disqualification under that Rule. They say their counsel has no

personal knowledge regarding plaintiff’s conditions of

confinement and that he was careful to insure he had no

involvement in the adjudication of plaintiff’s criminal trial.

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Defendants, therefore, ask that the motion to disqualify their

counsel be denied.

3. Rule 3.7 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct

provides as follows:

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in

which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness

unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested

issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value

of legal services rendered in the case; or

(3) disqualification would work substantial

hardship on the client.

The comment to this rule provides that “[c]ombining the

roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the

opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest

between the lawyer and client.” 

In Weigel, the court held that Rule 3.7 was applicable to

cases where the attorney would “be called to testify for the

opposing party, provided the opposing party demonstrates three

things: (1) that the attorney’s testimony is material to the

determination of the issues being litigated; (2) that the

evidence is unobtainable elsewhere; and (3) that the testimony

is or may be prejudicial to the testifying attorney’s client.”

Id., 356 Ark. at 625 (citations omitted). 

This three-pronged test was viewed as necessary to prevent

“Rule 3.7 from being used as a sword or a tactical measure to

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

hinder the other party’s case.” Id., 356 Ark. at 625. The test

was said to “strike[] a reasonable balance between the potential

for abuse and those instances where the attorney’s testimony may

be truly necessary to the opposing party’s case.” Id. (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted). The court felt the test

took into consideration “many of the reasons for prohibiting an

attorney from being both advocate and necessary witness: (1) an

advocate who becomes a witness may be in the unseemly position

of arguing his own credibility; (2) the roles of advocate and

witness are inconsistent and should not be assumed by one

individual; and (3) the attorney should not act as both trial

counsel and a material witness because of the appearance of

impropriety.” Id., 356 Ark. at 625-626 (citations omitted). 

While the Court agrees Johnson has not shown that

disqualification of Mr. Ohm is necessary under Rule 3.7, such

conclusion does not resolve the issue raised. 

Mr. Ohm represents Captain Melvin Steed and Judy McMurrian

of the Garland County Detention Center. A case against these

individuals in their official capacities is the equivalent of a

case against Garland County. See e.g., Butler v. Fletcher, 465

F.3d 340, 342 (8th Cir. 2006)(A suit against an the Sheriff in

his official capacity is in essence a suit against the County).

It is shown to the Court that Mr. Ohm is a part-time judge

for the Hot Springs District Court. The Court takes judicial

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

notice of the facts that Hot Springs District Court is in Hot

Springs, Arkansas and that Hot Springs is located in Garland

County. 

Pursuant to Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution,

district courts have limited county-wide jurisdiction over

misdemeanor cases, preliminary felony cases, and certain civil

cases in matters of less than $5,000. 2 David Newbern & John J.

Watkins, Arkansas Civil Prac. & Proc. § 2.5 (4th ed. 2007). 

Canon 2 of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct provides

that: “A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.” Ark. Code Jud.

Conduct 2. The notes with respect to the application of the

Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct state that a “continuing parttime judge . . . shall not practice law in the court on which

the judge serves or in any court subject to the appellate

jurisdiction of the court on which the judge serves, and shall

not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has

served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.”

Application of the Code of Judicial Conduct B(2) (emphasis

added), www.state.ar.us/jddc/conduct.html#application .

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has issued three

advisory opinions dealing with the issue of part-time judges

practicing law which appear to have relevance to the issue

before this court. 

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

(a) One of the advisory opinions was issued to Ralph Ohm

on April 9, 1999, Advisory Opinion #99-02, and deals with

whether he should continue to act as civil attorney for Garland

County while serving as municipal judge. Judicial Ethics

Advisory Committee, Advisory Opinion #99-02 (April 9, 1999).

The opinion indicates Mr. Ohm had entered into an agreement with

the other municipal judge that Ohm would preside over only city

cases and that the other judge would handle all cases involving

county ordinance, county officials, the Garland County Sheriff’s

Department, and the Arkansas State Police. 

Despite this arrangement, the committee stated it was

troubled by the situation where Ohm acted both as municipal

judge and civil attorney for Garland County. It noted that

Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct required judges to

uphold and independence of the judiciary and Canon 2 required

judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It stated

it could not prohibit him from holding both positions in light

of his obvious attempts to avoid possible conflicts. However,

it stated holding both roles was unwise and imprudent. Their

advice was that he step down as county attorney. If he

continued to hold the position, he was advised to be

particularly alert to conflicts and the need to recuse as judge

or refrain from acting as county attorney in particular matters.

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

(b) Another advisory opinion, Advisory Opinion #97-04, was

issued to John Dodge on June 13, 1997. Judicial Ethics Advisory

Committee, Advisory Opinion #97-04 (June 13, 1997). Mr. Dodge

was a part time city Judge for Sulphur Springs but also

represented the city various matters. The Committee stated that

is it were not for the Application Section of the Code exemption

of Canon 4G, practice of law for a continuing part-time judge,

Dodge could not engage in the practice of law. While part-time

judges were allowed to practice law to supplement their income,

the Committee stated “we are of the opinion that . . . extra

care and effort must be made so as not to create the appearance

of impropriety.” 

The Committee referred to Canon 2 and stated: 

It is our opinion that your representing the city that

you serve as municipal judge could create, in

reasonable minds, a perception that your ability to

carry out your judicial responsibilities with

integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.

Therefore, we conclude that it would be inappropriate

for a municipal judge to represent the city that he

serves in any cases regardless of the forum. Your

private practice should be as far removed as possible

from your court and the city you serve. The public

simply could not be expected to understand the fine

lines of jurisdictional issues and would tend to look

at the judge as both the attorney and the judge for

the city.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Advisory Opinion #97-04

(June 13, 1997).

(c) Another advisory opinion was issued to Steven Howard

on June 2, 2005. Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Advisory

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

Opinion #2005-03 (June 2, 2005). He asked whether his service

as a part-time Newport City Attorney (City Prosecutor) and a

part-time Deputy Prosecuting Attorney would conflict with his

service as a continuing part-time City Court Judge in Tuckerman

and Swifton. He was a part-time Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for

Jackson County and Tuckerman and Swifton were in Jackson County.

The Committee was of the opinion that his serving as Deputy

Prosecuting Attorney for Jackson County and as a City Court

Judge in towns located in Jackson County would be a violation of

the code. 

4. The Court notes that Johnson has two other pending

civil rights cases -- and he has filed motions to recuse in all

three. 

* In Johnson v. Captain Melvin Steed and Deputy David

Shelby, civil no. 06-6030, Johnson contends he was retaliated

against because he filed his other civil rights cases 06-6018

and 06-6009. 

* In 06-6030, Johnson asserts that he made repeated

requests to file harassment charges against Shelby but instead

Steed filed harassment charges against Johnson. Johnson alleges

the harassment charges were filed because he filed too many

grievances against Shelby. It is these harassment charges over

which Ohm presided as Judge.

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

* In Johnson v. Captain Melvin Steed and Judy McMurrian,

civil no. 06-6018, Johnson alleges that while incarcerated at

the Garland County Detention Center he was, among other things,

refused access to the law library, subjected to verbal abuse,

his medication was improperly dispensed or refused, and he was

locked-down and disciplined for the conduct of others.

5. Having given careful consideration to facts of this

case and in light of Canon 2 of the Arkansas Code of Judicial

Conduct and the Application Notes regarding the practice of law

by part-time judges, the Court concludes it is inappropriate for

Mr. Ohm to serve as counsel for defendants in this case since he

presided over the arraignment of the plaintiff. 

The Court notes in passing that plaintiff’s criminal

charges were allegedly filed by the defendants against him in

retaliation for his submitting grievances at the detention

center and/or his filing other civil rights actions against

them. All three of these cases appear to be inter-related.

Given his involvement in the criminal case, however minimal it

may have been, the Court believes it is inappropriate for Mr.

Ohm to represent the defendants in this case. 

6. Accordingly, upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion

(Doc. 11) will be granted and defendants are given twenty days

to have substitute counsel enter an appearance on their behalf.

At that time, Mr. Ohm will withdraw from this case.

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February 2007.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:06-cv-06009-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/06/07 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>