Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037-4/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 second motion to reopen case and appoint 

counsel (Doc. 98). For the reasons given below, this motion will be denied.

The parties reached a settlement of all remaining claims during a settlement conference 

before Chief United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford on April 12, 2022. Mr. Flemons, who 

is an incarcerated civil rights claimant, was present at that settlement conference and was 

represented there by court-appointed counsel. After a two-and-a-half-month delay, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to their settlement agreement. See Doc. 94. 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. He alleged that he never signed 

the written settlement agreement, and that his attorney nevertheless stipulated to dismissal of his 

claims without his permission. The Court denied that motion because it provided “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.” See Doc. 97, p. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In particular, the Court noted that Mr. Flemons’s motion did not allege that payment under the 

settlement agreement had not been completed or that the terms of the written agreement he had 

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 99 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

been presented with after the settlement conference differed in any material way from the 

settlement that had previously been reached during that conference.

Now Mr. Flemons has filed a second motion to reopen the case and appoint new counsel, 

elaborating upon the allegations and arguments made in his prior motion. Most importantly, Mr. 

Flemons now alleges that “[t]o date I’ve still not received any payment.” See Doc. 98, ¶ 4. 

However, Mr. Flemons also attached correspondence from his attorneys that clearly shows the 

settling defendants provided Mr. Flemons’s court-appointed counsel with the payment due to him

under the terms of the settlement agreement. That correspondence also shows that the only reason 

Mr. Flemons had not yet received this payment was because he was failing to communicate with 

his attorneys, refusing to provide his attorneys with written instructions on where to send the check, 

and refusing to return a signed copy of the written agreement to his attorneys. See generally Docs. 

98-1, 98-2. The post-settlement breakdown in communication between Mr. Flemons and his 

attorneys does not implicate the validity of the settlement agreement that the parties reached during 

the April 12 settlement conference, nor does it call into question the defendants’ compliance with 

the terms of that agreement.

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

case and appoint counsel (Doc. 98) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2023.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III

P.K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 99 Filed 02/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>