Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-7/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

On this 5th day of April 2006, the above referenced matter

comes on for this Court’s consideration of several motions

concerning separate defendants Randel Earl Clarida and Zeola

Yeager. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and

orders as follows: 

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005; and, then filed an amended complaint herein on November 9,

2005, naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel

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

Yeager. 

2. On November 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’

Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater and Alton

Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion for Judgment Against the Defendant Randel

Earl Clarida for Failure to Answer First Amended Complaint (Doc.

#59) and Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W.

Fitzwater and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion for Judgment Against

the Defendant Zeola Yeager for Failure to Answer First Amended

Complaint (Doc. #60). A brief in support of the motions was also

filed by the plaintiffs. (Doc. #62) In the motions and brief,

the plaintiffs claim that service of the First Amended Complaint

was made upon separate defendants Randel Earl Clarida (hereinafter

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 113 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
 The plaintiffs did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss. 1

 Neither Clarida nor Yeager responded to motion filed as document #93. 2

-2-

“Clarida”) and Zeola Yeager (hereinafter “Yeager”) on November 9,

2005. Clarida and Yeager responded, with general denials, to the

plaintiffs’ motions on January 31, 2006. (Docs. # 99 & 100)

3. Additionally, Clarida and Yeager filed a Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #75) on December 15, 2005; and, an Answer to 1

Amended Complaint (Doc. #92) on January 12, 2006. 

4. Next, the plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Randell Earl Clarida, Zeola Yeager Answer to Amended

Complaint for Non-Compliance with Court Order and Non-Compliance

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. #93). 

2

5. And, finally, the plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Strike Defendants’ Randell Earl Clarida and Zeola Yeager Responses

to Motions for Judgment by Default for Non-Compliance with Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. #101). Clarida and Yeager

responded to the motion(Doc. #103); the plaintiffs replied to the

separate defendants’ response (Doc. #104); and, Clarida and Yeager

responded to the plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. #106). 

6. The Court notes that the line of pleadings set forth

above stems from plaintiffs’ initial allegation that neither

Clarida nor Yeager responded, in a timely fashion, to the

plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint

was filed with the Court on November 9, 2005; and, the plaintiffs

assert that the First Amended Complaint was served upon Clarida

and Yeager on November 9, 2005. However, there is no evidence of

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 113 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

how such service was accomplished – whether by hand delivery,

through the mail, or through counsel for the defendants. 

7. Clarida and Yeager, through various pleadings, assert

that they were never served, personally or electronically, with

the First Amended Complaint, likely due to the fact that counsel

for the separate defendants was not registered on this Court’s

electronic filing system – CM/ECF. 

8. Although the plaintiffs make various arguments

concerning timeliness of Clarida and Yeager’s pleadings, and the

inadvertence of the separate defendants’ counsel with respect to

the time frames required by this Court, the Court finds that the

filing delays are a direct result of the fact that the separate

defendants’ counsel was not properly registered for the CM/ECF

computer system until January 31, 2006. The problem has now been

corrected; and, the Court will not punish Clarida and Yeager for

the delays of counsel. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motions (Docs.

# 59, 60, 93, & 101) are hereby DENIED. 

9. Further, upon due consideration, the Court finds that

Clarida and Yeager’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 75) should be, and

hereby is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 113 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>