Estate of Allegra Warnick, The v. Benton County, Arkansas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ESTATE OF ALLEGRA WARNICK,
Deceased 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:25-cv-02085- MEF
BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS and
SHAWN HOLLOWAY, Benton County 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE
AND STAY THE CASE
Before the Court is Michael William Warnick’s (“Warnick”) Motion to Intervene pursuant
to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	(ECF No. 47). 	The matter is before the
undersigned by consent of the parties. (ECF No. 29, ¶ 11).
On June 17, 2025, Trenton Reicks (“Reicks”) was appointed as Special Representative of
the Estate of Allegra Warnick (“Allegra”) by the Circuit Court of Crawford County. In re Estate
of Allegra Warnick, 17PR-25-146 (Crawford Cnty. Cir. Ct. 2025). 	On May 18, 2026, upon
discovery of this, Warnick filed a Petition for Removal of Personal Representative, Revocation of
Letters, and a Motion to Transfer Venue in the Circuit Court. Id. Warnick insists that Reicks is
unsuitable and disqualified to act on behalf of Allegra’s estate because he procured his appointment
through material misrepresentation to the Court. Id.
The present Motion to Intervene was filed on May 20, 2026, asking this Court to allow
Warnick to intervene on behalf of Allegra’s minor children and to stay the case pending a final and
appealable state court ruling on his Petition for Removal. (ECF No. 47). Warnick contends that
he is Allegra’s biological father and with whom she resided in Benton County Arkansas at the time
of her death. Id. Further, he states that Allegra’s wrongful death beneficiaries under Arkansas law
Case 2:25-cv-02085-MEF Document 55 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
are her three minor children who have been legally adopted by their aunt, Audra Warnick. 	Id.
Warnick claims that Reicks is neither related to the minor children nor aligned with Allegra’s
immediate family.
On May 29, 2026, Warnick filed a Supplement to his Motion to Intervene contending that
there is an approximate 13-hour data blackout between the two surveillance video files produced
by the County. (ECF No. 52). He insists that this missing time directly conceals Allegra’s “severe
metabolic and respiratory distress within Booking Cell 6, standard-of-care violations, and
structural cell check failures explicitly detailed in the internal jail narrative reports.” Additionally,
the footage cuts off at abruptly 7:16 a.m. during active chest compressions, suppressing the final
12 minutes of the rescue response. 	Warnick maintains that Reicks has failed to obtain this
evidence, and without immediate intervention this electronic evidence could be permanently
overwritten, altered, or lost by the remaining county defendants. Id.
On June 1, 2026, Warnick filed a Second Supplement to his Motion attaching copies of a
Notice of Filing Supplemental Evidence he subsequently filed in the state court action. (ECF No.
53). 	It consists of Facebook posts made by Reicks regarding the circumstances surrounding
Allegra’s arrest and death, the fate of her dog, and allegations against Warnick.
A review of the state court docket indicates that Warnick’s Petition for Removal,
Revocation of Letters, and Motion to Transfer Venue has been scheduled for hearing on August
11, 2026, before the Honorable Mike Medlock, Crawford County Circuit Court. In re Estate of
Allegra Warnick, 17PR-25-146 (Crawford Cnty. Cir. Ct. 2025).
Rule 24 requires the Court to permit anyone to intervene who “claims an interest relating
to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of
the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest,
Case 2:25-cv-02085-MEF Document 55 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 	“[A] party
seeking to intervene must establish Article III standing in addition to the requirements of Rule 24.”
United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 2009). “The requirements
for Article III standing are (1) injury, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.” 	Nat’l Parks
Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. E.P.A., 759 F.3d 969, 974–75 (8th Cir. 2014); Metro. St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 569 F.3d 829, 833-34 (8th Cir. 2009). First, the prospective intervenor “must clearly allege
facts showing an injury in fact, which is an injury to a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete,
particularized, and either actual or imminent.’” 	Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d at 834
(citation omitted). 	Second, the party seeking to intervene must establish “a causal connection
between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560 (1992). 	“[I]n other words, the intervenors alleged injury must be ‘fairly traceable to the
defendant's conduct.’” Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n, 759 F.3d at 975 (quoting Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d at 834). Lastly, the prospective intervenor must establish that a “favorable
decision will likely redress the injury.” Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d at 834. “Abstract
injury is not enough.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983).
After reviewing Warnick’s motion, the Court finds he has pled sufficient facts to establish
standing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No.47) is hereby GRANTED and the
case is STAYED pending entry of a final order by the Circuit Court of Crawford County in the
probate case regarding Warnick’s Petition for Removal of Personal Representative, Revocation of
Letters, and a Motion to Transfer Venue in the Circuit Court
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 4th day of June 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02085-MEF Document 55 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>