Hale v. Karas Correctional Health (KCH) et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL EUGENE HALE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05117-TLB-CDC
KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
(KCH); SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL,
Washington County, Arkansas;
PARAMEDIC DUSTIN SANDERS, KCH;
KELLIE HINLEY, Head of Medical, KCH;
PARAMEDIC JORDAN PREVANAS,
KCH; PARAMEDIC JACK SMOTHERS,
KCH; and PARAMEDIC JUSTYN
MCENTIRE, KCH 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief United States District
Judge, 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	making 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Eugene Hale’s Motion to
Reopen Case (ECF No. 43). For the reasons given below, the undersigned recommends that the
Motion be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit on May 28, 2024, alleging that while he was
incarcerated at Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”) he was denied adequate medical
care in violation of his constitutional rights. See generally ECF No. 1. Several months later, on
September 23, 2024, he called this Court’s Clerk’s Office and advised that he had been released
from custody and provided his new address. See ECF No. 37, p. 1. As he was proceeding in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), the Court entered an Order directing him to submit a new IFP application
Case 5:24-cv-05117-TLB Document 54 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
reflecting his free-world financial status, and giving him a deadline of November 19, 2024 by
which to either submit the new IFP application or pay the $350 filing fee. 	See ECF No. 30.
Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline, so the Court entered an Order directing him to show cause no
later than December 12, 2024, why he had not obeyed the previous Order, and warning that if he
did not do so then this case “shall be subject to dismissal.” See ECF No. 32. Plaintiff also failed
to file any response to the show-cause Order; so on February 13, 2025, this case was dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. See ECF Nos.
37, 40.
On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 43).
However, several weeks later he also filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 44) from this Court’s
dismissal for failure to prosecute. 	While his appeal was pending before the Eighth Circuit, this
Court was divested of jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen. 	See, e.g., Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an
event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the
district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). On February
13, 2026, the Eighth Circuit entered its Mandate dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal as untimely, see ECF
No. 53, thereby restoring jurisdiction of the case to this Court. Plaintiff’s Motion is now ripe for
decision.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” when the Court, in its discretion, finds
that a reason justifies providing such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, the Eighth Circuit
has cautioned that “Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon
Case 5:24-cv-05117-TLB Document 54 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” 	U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt
Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Motion claims that the reason he missed the deadlines discussed above in
Section I of this Report and Recommendation is that “[w]hile I was at the Returning Home NWA
in Huntsville, my correspondence with your court . . . was being stopped.” He continues:
I am unable to tell you why or give a reason. The mail that was being mailed was
not sent due to staff preventing my communication. I was a residen[t] at the time
when mail was being returned. My mail should have been delivered to me. It was
not.
(ECF No. 43, p. 1).
The undersigned has reviewed the docket for the Arkansas state-court criminal case of
State v. Michael Eugene Hale, Case No. 72CR-23-1709. 	Filings in that case indicate that on
September 9, 2024, Plaintiff was sentenced to probation and ordered at that time to “successfully
complete Returning Home/CAP program,” see Sentencing Order filed Sept. 12, 2024, but that on
February 3, 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke his probation because, among other things,
“he was discharged from the Returning Home program unsuccessful due to his non-compliance,”
see Revocation Petition filed Feb. 3, 2025. 	Notably, in the instant matter, this Court’s Orders
directing Plaintiff to submit a new IFP application and then to show cause for failing to do so were
mailed to Plaintiff and were not returned as undeliverable. However, the undersigned’s January
21, 2025 Report and Recommendation (which recommended dismissal of this case for failure to
prosecute) was returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 39. Likewise, the February 13, 2025 Order
adopting that recommendation and dismissing this case was returned as undeliverable. See ECF
No. 41. 	This is consistent with the timeline from Plaintiff’s state-court criminal case discussed
above, indicating that the reason Plaintiff failed to receive the aforementioned Report and
Recommendation and Order adopting it was not that staff at Returning Home withheld those items
Case 5:24-cv-05117-TLB Document 54 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
from him—rather, Plaintiff did not receive them because he no longer lived there and had failed
to update this Court regarding his new address (as he had previously been directed to do, see ECF
No. 3).
This Court’s January 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation discussed the various
deadlines that Plaintiff had missed, and also explained that he had fourteen days following that
Report’s filing within which to submit objections to it. See generally ECF No. 37. If Plaintiff had
timely updated the Court regarding his new address, then he would have received a copy of that
Report and Recommendation, if not on the first mailing then certainly on a subsequent one. This,
in turn, would have given him the opportunity to file objections and potentially even to cure his
previous lack of compliance. Plaintiff was undoubtedly aware of his obligation to keep the Court
timely apprised of any changes in his address, as evidenced by the fact that he had previously
complied with this obligation on September 23, 2024. Indeed, and somewhat ironically, that initial
act of compliance is what set in motion this entire chain of events which eventually led to his
case’s dismissal. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff demonstrated awareness of this requirement again nine
months after this case was dismissed, when he filed not only the instant Motion to Reopen but also
a Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 46) informing the Court that he was back in WCDC.
The undersigned can only conclude from these facts that, for whatever reason, Plaintiff
simply lost interest in this lawsuit once he was released from WCDC and chose not to prosecute it
while he was in the free world, and only recovered interest in this lawsuit once he returned to
WCDC. The undersigned does not believe this constitutes the sort of “exceptional circumstances”
that would warrant granting the “extraordinary relief” of reopening this case that Plaintiff requests.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff Michael Eugene Hale’s Motion to Reopen
Case (ECF No. 43) be DENIED.
Case 5:24-cv-05117-TLB Document 54 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 22nd day of April 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05117-TLB Document 54 Filed 04/22/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>