Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_17-cv-00204/USCOURTS-ared-5_17-cv-00204-1/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

AARON FLEMONS

ADC #119749 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 5:17-cv-00204-KGB/BD

LASONYA GRISWOLD, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court has received the five Partial Recommended Dispositions submitted by United 

States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. Nos. 89, 95, 96, 100, 102). Plaintiff Aaron Flemons has 

filed objections to all five Partial Recommended Dispositions (Dkt. Nos. 92, 99, 101, 104). After 

careful consideration of the Partial Recommended Dispositions, the objections, and a de novo

review of the record, the Court adopts Judge Deere’s Partial Recommended Dispositions as its 

findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 89, 95, 96, 100, 102). 

Mr. Flemons, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on August 7, 2017, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights during his 

incarceration at the “East Area Regional Max unit” in Marianna, Arkansas (Dkt. No. 33, at 1).1 

As relevant here, Mr. Flemons has named as defendants Dr. Byrd, Nurse Tina Evans, Nurse Jalen

Tucker, Nurse Brandi Hibbs, Nurse Amanda Sackett, Nurse Tasia Moss, and Nurse Lindsey

Wingfield, among others (Dkt. Nos. 46, 58). Though Judge Deere filed five individual Partial 

Recommended Dispositions and Mr. Flemons objects to each individual Partial Recommended 

Disposition, each separately-filed Partial Recommended Disposition and attendant objection 

follows a similar pattern.

 1

 Mr. Flemons filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2018, a supplemental complaint 

on May 7, 2018, and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 33, 46, 58). 

Case 5:17-cv-00204-KGB Document 134 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 5
2

In the first Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere notes that on June 20, 2018, a 

summons issued to Dr. Byrd was returned to the Court unexecuted with an explanation that he was

neither a Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”) employee nor an independent contractor, and that 

counsel for CCS was unable to identify this defendant (Dkt. Nos. 53; 89, at 1). On June 28, 2018, 

Judge Deere ordered Mr. Flemons to ascertain Dr. Byrd’s address, using the discovery process or 

by other means, by September 25, 2018, so that Dr. Byrd could be timely served with a copy of 

the complaint (Dkt. Nos. 56, at 1; 89, at 2). By November 19, 2018, Mr. Flemons had failed to 

notify Judge Deere of a valid service address for Dr. Byrd, and the time allowed by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure for serving Dr. Byrd with process had expired (Dkt. No. 89, at 2). See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Therefore, Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Flemons’ claims against Dr. 

Byrd be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. No. 89, at 2). In Mr. Flemons’ objection, he contends 

that he was provided Dr. Byrd’s name by a CCS employee in a grievance response (Dkt. Nos. 2, 

at 55, 57; 92, at 1). As a result, Mr. Flemons challenges that defendants now state that they cannot 

identify Dr. Byrd (Dkt. No. 92, at 1). Additionally, Mr. Flemons alleges that any information 

provided to the Court regarding Dr. Byrd’s address was done so under seal, leaving Mr. Flemons 

unable to attain such information (Id.). Mr. Flemons claims that without appointing counsel he 

cannot obtain any additional information regarding Dr. Byrd’s whereabouts (Id.). Thus, in addition 

to objecting to Judge Deere’s recommendation, Mr. Flemons also claims that this Court should 

appoint him counsel (Id.).

In the second Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere notes that on September 20, 

2018, summonses for Ms. Evans and Mr. Tucker were returned to the court unexecuted with an 

explanation that Ms. Evans and Mr. Tucker are traveling nurses for Maxim Healthcare and that 

counsel for CCS does not have addresses for them (Dkt. Nos. 63; 73; 95, at 1). On September 26, 

Case 5:17-cv-00204-KGB Document 134 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 5
3

2018, Judge Deere ordered Mr. Flemons to locate service addresses for Ms. Evans and Mr. Tucker, 

using discovery rules or otherwise, by December 26, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 79, at 2; 95, at 1-2). By 

January 15, 2019, Mr. Flemons had failed to notify Judge Deere of valid service addresses for Ms. 

Evans and Mr. Tucker, and the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for serving 

Ms. Evans and Mr. Tucker with process had expired (Dkt. No. 95, at 2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Therefore, Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Flemons’ claims against Ms. Evans and Mr. Tucker 

be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. No. 95, at 2). 

Additionally, in the third Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere notes that on 

September 20, 2018, a summons issued to Ms. Hibbs at her last-known address was also returned 

unexecuted (Dkt. Nos. 77; 96, at 1). On October 16, 2018, Judge Deere ordered Mr. Flemons to 

locate a valid service address for Ms. Hibbs, through the discovery process or otherwise, by 

January 14, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 86; 96, at 2). By January 16, 2019, Mr. Flemons had failed to notify 

Judge Deere of a valid service address for Ms. Hibbs, and the time allowed by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure for serving Ms. Hibbs with process had expired (Dkt. No. 96, at 2). See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(m). Therefore, Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Flemons’ claims against Ms. Hibbs 

be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. No. 96, at 2). In Mr. Flemons’ objection to both the second 

and third Partial Recommended Dispositions, he claims that he objects for the reasons stated in 

prior objections (Dkt. No. 99). Mr. Flemons reiterates that he is proceeding without assistance of 

counsel and cannot possess privileged information such as personal addresses (Id.). Without 

appointed counsel, Mr. Flemons maintains that he cannot locate and serve any defendants (Id.).

In the fourth Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere notes that on September 20, 

2018, a summons issued to Ms. Sackett was also returned unexecuted (Dkt. Nos. 74; 100, at 1). 

Counsel for CCS provided the last-known address for Ms. Sackett; however, the attempt to serve 

Case 5:17-cv-00204-KGB Document 134 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 5
4

the reissued summons at that last-known address was returned to the Court unexecuted on 

November 28, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 90; 100, at 1). On December 3, 2018, Judge Deere ordered Mr. 

Flemons to locate a valid service address for Ms. Sackett, through the discovery process or 

otherwise, by March 3, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 91; 100, at 1-2). Likewise, a summons issued to Ms. Moss 

was returned unexecuted on September 20, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 75; 100, at 2). Counsel for CCS 

provided the last-known address for Ms. Moss; however, the attempt to serve the reissued 

summons at that last-known address was returned to the Court unexecuted on December 20, 2018 

(Dkt. Nos. 93; 100, at 1). On December 27, 2018, Judge Deere ordered Mr. Flemons to locate a 

valid service address for Ms. Moss, through the discovery process or otherwise, by March 20, 2019 

(Dkt. Nos. 94; 100, at 2). By April 1, 2019, Mr. Flemons had failed to notify Judge Deere of valid 

service addresses for Ms. Sackett and Ms. Moss, and the time allowed by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure for serving Ms. Sackett and Ms. Moss with process had expired (Dkt. No. 100, at 

2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Therefore, Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Flemons’ claims 

against Ms. Sackett and Ms. Moss be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. No. 100, at 2). Mr. 

Flemons objected to this Partial Recommended Disposition for the reasons stated in his prior 

objections (Dkt. No. 101). Mr. Flemons notes that he is a maximum-security inmate and is unable 

to locate and serve these defendants due to his incarceration and inability to obtain any personal 

information of the defendants’ (Id.).

Finally, in the fifth Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere notes that a summons 

issued to Ms. Wingfield was returned unexecuted on September 20, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 65; 102, at 

1). Counsel for CCS provided the last-known address for Ms. Wingfield; however, the attempt to 

serve the reissued summons at that last-known address was returned to the Court unexecuted on 

January 29, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 97; 102, at 1). On January 31, 2019, Judge Deere ordered Mr. 

Case 5:17-cv-00204-KGB Document 134 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 5
5

Flemons to locate a valid service address for Ms. Wingfield by April 30, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 98; 102, 

at 1-2). By May 2, 2019, Mr. Flemons had failed to notify Judge Deere of a valid service address

for Ms. Wingfield, and the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for serving Ms. 

Wingfield with process had expired (Dkt. No. 102, at 2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Therefore, 

Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Flemons’ claims against Ms. Wingfield be dismissed without 

prejudice (Dkt. No. 102, at 2). In his objection, Mr. Flemons again reiterates that he objects for 

the reasons stated in his prior objections (Dkt. No. 104).

The Court notes, however, that Mr. Flemons was previously granted authority to use the

discovery process to ascertain the service addresses of Dr. Byrd (Dkt. No. 56), Ms. Evans (Dkt. 

No. 79), Mr. Tucker (Id.), Ms. Hibbs (Dkt. No. 86), Ms. Sackett (Dkt. No. 91), Ms. Moss (Dkt. 

No. 94), and Ms. Wingfield (Dkt. No. 98). Mr. Flemons bore the responsibility to provide the 

Court and the United States Marshal Service with valid service addresses for these defendants. 

See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, after careful review of 

the Partial Recommended Dispositions and Mr. Flemons’ objections, and after a de novo review 

of the record, the Court concludes that the Partial Recommended Dispositions should be, and 

hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 89, 95, 96, 

100, 102). Consequently, the Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Flemons’ claims against Dr. 

Byrd, Ms. Evans, Mr. Tucker, Ms. Hibbs, Ms. Sackett, Ms. Moss, and Ms. Wingfield, and these 

defendants are dismissed without prejudice from this lawsuit.

It is so ordered this 10th day of February, 2020.

__________________________________ 

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00204-KGB Document 134 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 5