District Court, E.D. Arkansas — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Williams v. Norris
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2010-06-14
In Williams v. Norris, a state prisoner sued Arkansas Department of Correction officials alleging that his prolonged confinement in administrative segregation violated his due process and equal protection rights due to inadequate periodic reviews. Following a trial, the court found that defendants Harmon, Moncrief, James, Evans, and Harris violated the plaintiff's due process rights by failing to provide meaningful reviews of his administrative segregation status over many years, though it dismissed claims against defendant Hobbs and found no equal protection violation. The court awarded nominal damages of $4,846 (calculated at $1 per day for 4,846 days in segregation) under precedents allowing such awards despite the Prison Litigation Reform Act's bar on compensatory damages without physical injury, while denying punitive damages for lack of evil motive or reckless indifference.
civil rightscriminal law
Whisenhunt v. Southwestern Telephone L.P.
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2008-10-07
The case involved a dispute over responsibility for costs to relocate underground telephone lines as part of a private real estate development project. The Whisenhunts sold property to Fellowship Bible Church and, under related development and sale agreements, committed to performing site improvements including utility work and road changes around the properties in Little Rock; they sought to require Southwestern Telephone L.P. to bear the relocation expenses. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the project was not a public works undertaking, the Whisenhunts were the dominant moving party that triggered the need for relocation through their private development plans, and established precedent places such costs on the private developers who initiate and can plan for them.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Bell v. Norris
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2007-09-18
In Bell v. Norris, Arkansas inmate Albert Bell filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his two convictions for first-degree murder and consecutive life sentences arising from a 1992 grocery store robbery and shooting. The case had proceeded through multiple state court proceedings, including a jury trial, appeals on suppression issues regarding custodial statements, and post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, all of which upheld the convictions. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the petition after reviewing the claims on the merits and procedural grounds, and the district court adopted those findings and recommendations in full following de novo review. The court therefore entered judgment dismissing the habeas petition in its entirety with prejudice.
criminal lawprocedurefederal power
Stanley v. Barnhart
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2007-02-14
The case involved an attorney who was sanctioned and suspended for five years from representing claimants before the Social Security Commissioner, leading him to sue the agency for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 406, the APA, and his statutory and constitutional rights. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because that provision applies only to individuals seeking benefits, not attorneys, and that neither the APA nor § 406 confers review authority. Even assuming jurisdiction existed, the court found the suspension decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff's due process claims regarding standards of proof, panel composition, witnesses, and regulatory sanctions lacked merit.
procedurecivil rightsfederal power
Walters v. Weiss
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2003-10-16 · cited 4×
This case involved a class action by custodial parents in Arkansas alleging that the state Office of Child Support Enforcement violated federal requirements under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and the Due Process Clause by failing to promptly disburse child support payments, provide adequate notice of collections and distributions, offer mechanisms to correct errors, and avoid imposing administrative fees or recouping mistaken payments. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking enforcement of specific statutory provisions on timing, notice, and fees. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the cited provisions of Title IV-D do not create enforceable individual rights under § 1983 and that the plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest under state or federal law sufficient to support a due process claim. The court reasoned that the statutes do not unambiguously impose the detailed obligations asserted by the plaintiffs and that available state remedies were not shown to be inadequate.
family lawcivil rightsfederal power
United States v. Hively
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2002-03-04 · cited 2×
In United States v. Hively, a criminal trial, journalist Sandy Davis and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette moved to limit her testimony after being subpoenaed as a witness by both the prosecution and defense. Davis indicated she would refuse to answer most of the defense's proposed questions, claiming a journalistic privilege analogous to attorney-client privilege, even though the questions did not seek confidential sources. The court denied the motion to limit testimony, holding that movants failed to establish any applicable privilege that would justify refusing to answer relevant questions, and directed Davis to appear and testify or face consequences. The ruling emphasized that the questions were relevant to the defense and did not implicate protected information, consistent with limits on reporter privileges recognized in cases like Branzburg v. Hayes.
criminal lawfree speechprocedure