Ferrell et al v. Nixon et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
BREANNA FERRELL and CHARLES FERRELL 	PLAINTIFFS
V. 	CASE NO. 3:24-CV-3038
DAVID NIXON, Mayor of Bull Shoals,
in His Individual Capacity;
DAVID HOTCHKISS, in His Individual Capacity;
JOHN AINSWORTH, Police Chief of Bull Shoals,
in His Individual Capacity;
CITY OF BULL SHOALS;
and DUSTIN SANDERS 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
In anticipation of the upcoming Case Management Hearing pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court has reviewed the attorney-filed Complaint (Doc. 2)
and finds it deficient in a number of material aspects. In particular, the Complaint identifies
many individuals in the “Facts” section but does not clearly explain how they are related
to the claims in this case or to one another. The facts are generally confusing and difficult
to follow.
In addition, all causes of action are pleaded in conclusory fashion. Counts I, II, and
V accuse all Defendants—without exception—of committing the torts of false prosecution,
false imprisonment, abuse of process, and defamation. The Complaint fails to explain the
elements of each tort, the facts that support each element, and the particular actions that
each Defendant is alleged to have committed with respect to each claim.
Count III is nominally a claim for tortious interference with contract; yet Plaintiffs
have failed to identify with any particularity the contract or contracts they claim were
Case 3:24-cv-03038-DCF Document 19 Filed 03/04/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
interfered with, the elements of the claim, and the facts that support each element as to
each and every Defendant.
Count IV asserts that all Defendants have deprived both of the Plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Count IV’s facts—which
comprise two short sentences—mentions only two of the Defendants by name (City of
Bull Shoals and Dustin Sanders). Neither Plaintiff is mentioned by name. And though the
claim generally alludes to a failure to train and “the importance of Due Process and being
truthful,” the Court cannot tell which constitutional rights were violated, how they were
violated, and which Defendant is at fault.
Finally, Count VI alleges a “loss of consortium” on behalf of Plaintiff Charles Ferrell
against all Defendants. Count VI fails to explain any facts or circumstances surrounding
this loss of consortium or the reasons why each Defendant is liable. Further, the Court
notes that a claim for loss of consortium is most commonly asserted in the context of
personal injury—though, here, no personal injury is alleged to have occurred.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint correcting
the above deficiencies by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 7, 2025. Plaintiffs
are further directed to email a file-marked copy of the amended complaint to pro se
Defendant David Hotchkiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day of March, 2025.
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-03038-DCF Document 19 Filed 03/04/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>