Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-15/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

Now on this 5th day of February, 2007, comes on for

consideration the Renewal Of Motion To Dismiss By Defendant Johnny

L. Nichols (document # 181) which was filed herein by separate

Defendant, Johnny L. Nichols (Nichols) on January 19, 2007, and

the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders

as follows with respect thereto: 

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005, and on November 9, 2005, an amended complaint was filed

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

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

Yeager. 

2. In the course of discovery, defendants prepared and

served each of the named plaintiffs with a Notice of Deposition.

The notices provided for the depositions of the three named

plaintiffs to take place on June 6 and 7, 2006, in the Boone

County Courthouse in Harrison, Arkansas. 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
2

On May 23, 2006, a pleading entitled Plaintiffs’ Oppositions

and Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Deposition and

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Availability (document #123) was filed with

the Court in which plaintiffs objected to Notices of Depositions

propounded by the defendants. 

By Order of June 2, 2006 (document #127), the Court overruled

plaintiffs’ objections and ordered that the defendants were

entitled to conduct the three depositions noticed for June 6 and

7, 2006. 

3. Plaintiffs did not show up for the scheduled depositions

on June 6 and 7, but, instead, filed on June 6, 2006 a motion to

“recall, set aside and vacate” this Court’s June 2 Order. 

4. Several of the separate defendants then moved for

dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, pursuant to Rule 37 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due to the plaintiffs’ failure

to attend the June 6 and 7 depositions. 

Although plaintiffs responded to the dismissal motions, the

Court took no action on them but, rather, saw fit to address

plaintiffs’ failure to appear for the depositions as ordered by

the Court -- as well as their said motion to “recall, set aside

and vacate” this Court’s Order of June 2, 2006.

5. By separate orders dated July 19, 2006, the Court took

under advisement defendants’ motion to dismiss and set out

instructions to the parties. Those instructions contained, among

other things, the following:

(a) As stated above, Rule 37 provides this Court with the

authority to order the payment of costs and attorneys fees.

The Court finds that, considering plaintiffs’ willful failure

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
3

to attend the properly scheduled depositions, it is

appropriate to order such payment in this case. 

(b) Accordingly, within five (5) days of the date of this

Order, defendant is to submit the following to plaintiffs,

with copy to the Court: 

 (1) Three alternative dates for the rescheduling of the

previously scheduled depositions. The depositions will be

held at the Boone County Courthouse, as previously arranged;

and, 

 (2) A statement of costs and attorneys fees for amounts

expended due to the plaintiffs’ failure to attend the

depositions scheduled for June 6 and 7. 

(c) Within ten (10) days of the date the above information

is submitted by the defendant, the plaintiffs are directed:

(1) to notify defendant which of the three suggested

dates is agreeable for plaintiffs for the rescheduling of the

depositions; and, 

(2) to pay to the Clerk of Court -- for distribution to

defendant -- the amount submitted in the defendant’s

statements of costs and attorneys fees. 

If the amounts claimed seem reasonable to the Court, it will

forthwith enter an order directing the Clerk to distribute

the monies paid in by plaintiffs. If not, or if plaintiffs

have objection to the amounts requested, the Court will

address the matter after the depositions in question have

been taken. In no event are plaintiffs authorized to delay

making the payments because of any challenge they might wish

to make concerning them.

(document #141)

6. Instead of complying with this Court’s above directives,

the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals. (Document #161) That appellate court dismissed

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction per its judgment entered

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 4 of 9

December 11, 2006. Thus, the case remains pending before this

Court. (Document #171)

7. Just prior to and immediate after the plaintiffs’ appeal

was taken, separate defendants Johnny L. Nichols, Richard Bogue,

and Danny Hickman renewed their motions to dismiss due to the

plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this Court’s previous orders.

(documents #160, 165, 172, and 174) 

The Court, noting the pendency of the appeal, did not

immediately rule upon the renewed motions to dismiss. 

8. Ultimately, by an Order dated December 20, 2006

(document #176), the Court took under advisement the said renewed

motions to dismiss of the separate defendants and directed the

following: 

(a) In accordance with Rule 37 which provides this

Court with the authority to order the payment of costs

and attorneys fees, and considering plaintiffs’ willful

failure to attend the properly scheduled depositions,

the plaintiffs’ are within ten (10) days of this Order

directed to pay to the Clerk of Court -- for

distribution to the defendants -- the amounts claimed in

the defendants’ previously submitted statements of costs

and attorneys fees. 

In no event are plaintiffs authorized to delay

making the payments because of any challenge they might

wish to make concerning them. They are directed to pay

the amounts claimed forthwith on pain of sanctions

should they fail to do so. Any objection plaintiffs may have to

the amounts claimed will be addressed, if necessary, at the

conclusion of the case. 

(b) In addition, within five (5) days of the date

of this Order, defendants are to select a date or dates

suitable to them for the taking of the depositions

needed and to serve plaintiffs with proper Notices of

Depositions denoting the times they desire to take the

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 5 of 9

said depositions. The depositions will be held at the

Boone County Courthouse, as previously arranged. 

(c) The plaintiffs are directed to comply with the

Notices so provided on pain of sanctions if they fail to

do so. 

9. The Court, in its December 20, 2006 Order (document

#176) also noted the following: 

* If plaintiffs fail to comply with the

requirements of this Order; OR 

* if they fail to pay the costs and attorneys fees

for the previously scheduled depositions; OR 

* if they fail to comply with future orders of the

Court, it is likely the Court will impose further

sanctions which can -- and likely will -- include

dismissal of this action. 

10. The Court again received from the plaintiffs a motion

for reconsideration of its December 20, 2006 Order. (Document

#178) 

This motion for reconsideration was denied by this Court on

January 5, 2007 (document #180), and the plaintiffs were again

warned that failure to comply with the Court’s previous directives

would result in sanctions, likely including dismissal of this

action. 

11. The Court has now received a Renewal of Motion to

Dismiss by Defendant Johnny L. Nichols (document #181) presently

under discussion. In the motion, separate defendant Nichols

points out that the plaintiffs have failed to pay the attorney

fees and costs previously awarded by this Court to defendants’

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 6 of 9

attorneys as required by this Court’s December 20, 2006 Order. He

persuasively argues that plaintiffs are, therefore, “again in

flagrant disobedience of the Court’s orders”. He further informs

the Court that, despite plaintiffs’ disobedience, he and the other

defendants have tried to comply with the Court’s Order by once

again scheduling the depositions of plaintiffs for February 7 and

February 8, 2007. Finally, he argues that:

it would be unduly burdensome, and unjust, for Defendants and

their counsel to travel to Harrison, Arkansas, in order to

depose Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs have willfully refused to

deposit into the registry of the court the moneys assessed

against them as sanctions for failure to appear for their

previously properly noticed depositions. 

12. Nichols’ motion indicates that copies of the motion

under discussion were properly sent to all plaintiffs and the

other defendants in the case.

13. The Court has received no response from plaintiffs to

the said motion under discussion -- and now, on February 5, 2007

-- more than fifteen (15) days have elapsed since it was filed. 

14. An examination of the Clerk’s accounts reveals that, as

alleged by Nichols, plaintiffs have not paid to the Clerk the

amounts required by the Court’s previous Orders.

15. In light of the impending approach of the scheduled

depositions (On February 7 and 8) and the fact that plaintiffs

have not responded to the instant motion, the Court deems it

appropriate to now rule on Nichols’ renewed motion to dismiss --

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 7 of 9

as well as on the motions to dismiss heretofore filed by other

defendants and previously taken under advisement.

The Court believes it has been more than patient with

plaintiffs in this case and that it has given them more than

adequate chances to engage in the discovery process in connection

with the suit they have filed in this Court. However, that

patience is not endless and it has been exhausted.

The Court agrees with Nichols that it would be unduly

burdensome and unjust for defendants and their counsel to have to

make another apparently futile trip to Harrison to take

depositions which it appears the plaintiffs do not intend to give.

Moreover, the Court believes it to be just and appropriate to

sanction plaintiffs for their repeated violations of the Court’s

Orders which appear to be continuing. Having tried,

unsuccessfully, to get plaintiffs to comply with the lesser

measure of awarding costs and attorneys’ fees, the Court sees no

reasonable alternative to the granting of defendants’ several

motions to dismiss with prejudice -- and the Court will take that

course of action.

The Court thus finds that the several motions to dismiss

filed by the defendants herein should be granted and that the

plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice, as to

all defendants. The Court further finds that defendants should be

awarded judgment against the plaintiffs for the amount of the

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 8 of 9

costs and attorneys’ fees previously ordered to be paid by

plaintiffs and which were not so paid. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED the following motions are granted,

and that the plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with prejudice: 

* the Motion to Dismiss (document #134) of separate

defendant Johnny L. Nichols;

* the Motion to Dismiss (document #138) of separate

defendants Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue;

* the Motion to Dismiss (document #147) of separate

defendants Zeola Yeager and Randel Earl Clarida;

* Defendant Johnny L. Nichols’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss

(document #160);

* the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (document #165) of

separate defendants Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue;

* the Renewal of Renewed Motion to Dismiss (document #172)

of separate defendant Johnny L. Nichols;

* the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (document #174) of

separate defendants Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue; and,

* the Renewal of Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Johnny L.

Nichols (document #181). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the several defendants should be,

and hereby are, awarded judgment against the several plaintiffs,

the total sum of as follows: 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 9 of 9

* $2,165.13 in costs and attorney fees to separate

defendants Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue;

* $1,275.00 in costs and attorney fees to separate

defendants Zeola Yeager and Randel Earl Clarida; and

* $3,193.06 in costs and attorney fees to separate

defendant Johnny L. Nichols. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 183 Filed 02/05/07 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>