Shell v. Otwell et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROBERT D. SHELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:23-CV-04053-SOH-BAB
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN
OTWELL; LIEUTENANT GHORMLEY;
NURSE PRACTIONER DARRELL WAYNE
ELKIN; GUARD KATIE SHEETS; GUARD
JACKSON; and GUARD WILL 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court are two documents submitted
by Defendant Elkin on September 18, 2023: (1) an “Affidaavit (sic) of Darrell Elkin” (which was
docketed by the Court Clerk as an “Answer”) (ECF No. 25); and (2) a Motion for Summary
Judgment1 (ECF No. 26). Defendant Elkin also proceeds pro se in this matter. Both documents
are procedurally and substantively deficient pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of this Court.
A Summons to Defendant Elkin was returned executed on August 3, 2023, indicating any
responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint was due August 15, 2023. (ECF No. 21). The first
response Defendant Elkin filed in this matter was his unsigned 2 Answer on September 18, 2023—
approximately one month past the deadline. 	However, the Answer does not comply with Rule
1 The document filed at ECF No. 26 is untitled, however, it is clear from the text of the document,
Defendant Elkin intended it to be a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26).
2 The Answer of Darrell Elkin is not signed by Defendant Elkin, as is required by Rule 11(a),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other
paper must be signed … by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” (ECF No. 25, p. 4).
Curiously, the Answer also contains an undated Acknowledgement. (Id. at 6).
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 33 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Elkin’s unsigned3 Motion for Summary Judgment also fails to comply with Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 7.2 and 56.1 of the Local Rules for the
Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. 	Specifically, the Motion is not accompanied by a
separate statement of facts not in dispute or a brief as required by the rules. (ECF No. 26, pp. 1-
2). Defendant Elkin also attached fifty (50) pages of unmarked exhibits to his Motion. Id. at 5-
55.
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Bunch v. Univ. of Arkansas Bd. of Trs., 863
F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2017); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Even with a
liberal construction, Defendant Elkin’s Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment fail to comply
with the rules of this Court. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Defendant Elkin’s
Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 25, 26) from the docket in this matter.
The Court takes judicial notice that Defendant Elkin recently filed similarly deficient
documents in at least two other cases in this District and those documents have been similarly
addressed.4 Defendant is CAUTIONED that any further submissions to this Court which are not
in compliance with procedural or substantive law may be stricken without further notice.
As Defendant Elkin’s Answer is heretofore stricken from the record, he is given until
November 28, 2023 to file an answer which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Rules of this Court. Defendant Elkin is CAUTIONED that failure to file an appropriate
3 	This 	document 	is 	also 	not 	signed 	by 	Defendant, 	and 	it 	contains 	the 	same 	undated
Acknowledgement as Defendant Elkin’s Answer.
4 Swayze v. Marshall, et al., Civil No. 6:23-cv-06048-SOH; and Britt v. Shook, et al., Civil No.
2:23-cv-02077-TLB-MEF.
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 33 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by November 28, 2023 may result in the
entry of a default judgment against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of November 2023.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 33 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>