Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

AARON FLEMONS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 2:16-cv-2037 

JOHN DEVANE et al. DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Aaron Flemons’s motion to reopen case and appoint counsel 

(Doc. 96). For the reasons given below, this motion will be denied. 

This is a civil rights lawsuit that Mr. Flemons, who is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas 

Department of Corrections, brought regarding several incidents that occurred while he was 

incarcerated in the Sebastian County Detention Center. Mr. Flemons filed this case pro se, and 

proceeded in that capacity for much of its duration. The case had a somewhat convoluted 

procedural history, which need not be recounted in full here. Although many of Mr. Flemons’s 

claims were dismissed at either the pleading or summary-judgment stage, two of his claims 

survived summary judgment. See Doc. 70-2. The Court then appointed counsel to represent Mr. 

Flemons on those surviving claims. See Docs. 76, 84. 

Later, on April 12, 2022, the parties conducted a settlement conference before Chief United 

States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. See Doc. 93. Although the parties reached a settlement of 

all remaining claims during that conference, there was a delay in their filing of a joint stipulation 

of dismissal. On May 3, 2022, counsel for Mr. Flemons informed the Court that several days 

earlier they had received a draft of the written agreement from counsel for the defendants, and that 

the parties were working to resolve a minor issue regarding payment of a filing fee. Seven days 

later, counsel for the defendants informed the Court that the parties were now in complete 

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 97 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

agreement on the updated terms of the settlement release, and that they were now only waiting on 

signatures and payment. Another month and a half went by without any further updates to the 

Court or activity on the docket; so on June 28, 2022, the Court emailed counsel for both sides 

requesting that they promptly file a stipulation or motion for dismissal. The Court also informed 

the parties in that email that if a settlement payment had not been completed, then it would retain 

jurisdiction in this matter regarding the settlement. Three days later, the parties filed a joint 

stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 94), after which the Clerk of Court entered an order (Doc. 95)

dismissing this case with prejudice.

Five months later, on December 8, 2022, Mr. Flemons filed a motion (Doc. 96) pro se, 

requesting that this case be reopened and that new counsel be appointed for him. In his motion, 

Mr. Flemons alleges that he never signed the settlement agreement, and that his court-appointed

attorney nevertheless stipulated to dismissal of his claims without his permission. See id. at ¶¶ 2–

3. In particular, Mr. Flemons states that his attorney caused the settlement agreement to be faxed 

or emailed to the institution where he was incarcerated, and that employees of that facility 

presented him with the written agreement so he could sign it, but that he refused to do so “because 

it came from the ADC officials whom I do not trust.” See id. at ¶ 4.

The Court will construe Mr. Flemons’s motion as having been brought under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b), which authorizes a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, 

or proceeding for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” When a party’s attorney lacked authority 

to agree to a settlement and to consent to entry of judgment, that constitutes grounds for relief 

under Rule 60(b). See Surety Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Williams, 729 F.2d 581, 582–83 (8th Cir. 1984). 

However, “an attorney is presumed to possess authority to act on behalf of the client,” and 

“affirmative proof that the attorney had no right” to settle the claims is required for the judgment 

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 97 Filed 01/13/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

to which that attorney consented to be set aside. See id. Importantly, Mr. Flemons’s motion does 

not allege that the terms of the written agreement he refused to sign were materially different from 

what he previously agreed to at the settlement conference; and his motion does not allege that 

payment under the settlement agreement has not been completed. Since the Court presently has 

no basis for concluding that the joint stipulation of dismissal filed in this case was anything other 

than the consequence of Mr. Flemons’s “deliberate choice to settle” which he made “with advice 

from counsel” during the April 12 settlement conference, the motion will be denied. See 

Mardanlou v. General Motors Corp., 69 Fed. App’x 950, 952 (10th Cir. 2003). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Aaron Flemons’s motion to reopen case and 

appoint counsel (Doc. 96) is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2023. 

/s/P. K. Holmes, III

P.K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 97 Filed 01/13/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>