U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson on Tuesday denied a request to add more than 60 new plaintiffs and more than 40 new defendants to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a no-knock warrant that Little Rock police executed in 2017.
The original lawsuit was filed Dec. 6, 2017, by Roderick Talley of Little Rock, acting as his own attorney. It was later amended with the assistance of a court-appointed attorney and named as defendants the city, the Little Rock police chief, three Little Rock detectives and one patrol officer.
Talley alleges that police used excessive force, violated his civil rights, maliciously prosecuted him and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him in executing the warrant and arresting him. He seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and a declaration that the Little Rock Police Department's policies are unconstitutional.
Last week, less than four months before the July 8 trial date, attorney Mike Laux filed a motion to add the names of at least 60 more plaintiffs who he said live in Pulaski County and have been the victims of no-knock search warrants executed by Little Rock police. Laux joined the case in October.
Wilson held a hearing Tuesday morning to consider the request. He took over the case last week when the proposed addition of plaintiffs prompted the recusal of the previous judge, Leon Holmes, who said he was familiar with two of them.
At Tuesday's hearing, Wilson heard from attorney Brie Gibson of the Arkansas Municipal League, who argued on behalf of the city that Wilson shouldn't allow the case to be amended for three reasons. She said the request wasn't timely filed; each proposed plaintiff had a unique situation preventing them from being legally joined; and the delay caused by the changes would be prejudicial to the defendants.
Laux, participating by teleconference, argued that each of the proposed new plaintiffs is similarly situated, in that all the no-knock warrants stem from a common police policy.
But in a written order issued Tuesday afternoon, Wilson denied the request.
"Although leave to amend should be liberally granted," he wrote, "it is not warranted here. First, although the proposed amended complaint is 24 pages long, it fails to set out the claims in a way that allow each defendant to know which plaintiff is pursuing a cause of action against him or her."
Wilson added, "In much less vague complaints, pro se litigants are required to amend to provide the specific who, what, when, and where related to the allegations."
In his second reason for denying the request, Wilson said it appears that Talley wants to add as a plaintiff "every person who may have been subject to no-knock warrants" and "every officer who might have been involved in executing a no-knock warrant."
But, he said, each proposed plaintiff or group of plaintiffs "has a unique situation, with individual facts and personalized damages, if any."
He said there is no "right to relief" that arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions "unless all 60 additional plaintiffs were at [Talley's] residence on Aug. 10, 2017." In parentheses, he added, "I assume that is not the case, but it is not clear from the proposed amended complaint."
"There are numerous search warrant executions, each of which is unique," Wilson said in the order. "While a no-knock warrant may have been necessary for person A, it may not have been necessary for person B. Person C might have a valid false arrest claim, but person D may not. If the proposed amended complaint were permitted, there would be no practical way to present this case to a jury."
Wilson said the jury trial will remain scheduled to begin July 8, but if Talley wants to add defendants who were involved in the execution of the warrant at his home, or reduce his claims based on what he has learned during discovery, he will have to make a request to amend the suit by 5 p.m. April 9.
Laux, reached later by phone, said, "We are deciding whether we are going to amend the complaint by the date the judge gave us. We're keeping our options open as to the remaining [would-be] plaintiffs."
"Every case I do has its challenges and this one is no different," Laux said. "We thought it was prudent and economical to join all proposed plaintiffs because we allege a common, unconstitutional 'no-knock' policy at the [Little Rock Police Department] which damaged everyone. Nonetheless, we will move forward on behalf of all proposed plaintiffs, and they will get their day in court."
Metro on 04/03/2019