Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_02-cv-06102/USCOURTS-arwd-6_02-cv-06102-1/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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

EDDIE WATKINS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 02-6102

 

CHIEF RICHARD TAFT;

MAYOR NORTHCUTT;

LT. McANEAER; LT. ROSS; and

OFFICER BRANDON DAVIS DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

On December 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion to accept the statement of Stanley

Paxton, a former defendant, as evidence (Doc. 91). Defendants did not respond to the motion.

Rule 56(c) provides that “[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “The court and the

parties have great flexibility with regard to the evidence that may be used on a Rule 56

proceeding.” Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, 10A Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2721 (3d ed. 2005 ). Any evidence that would be admissible or usable at trial may

be considered. Id. 

The statement at issue is a notarized statement of Paxton dated November 25, 2005.

Plff’s Ex. A. At the time Paxton made the statement, he was a named defendant in this lawsuit.

His statement concerns events occurring while he was employed by the Malvern Police

Department under the supervision of Chief Richard Taft. On November 21, 2005, Watkins filed

a motion to voluntarily dismiss Paxton. (Doc. 88). The motion was granted on December 1,

Case 6:02-cv-06102-RTD-BES Document 93 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2005. (Doc. 89).

Rule 801(d)(2) provides that “[a] statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he statement is offered

against a party and is (A) the party’s own statement, in either an individual or a representative

capacity or . . . (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the

scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.” It therefore

appears that the statement would be admissible as the admission of a party opponent. The

undersigned will consider the statement in preparing a report and recommendation on the

summary judgment motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:02-cv-06102-RTD-BES Document 93 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>