Riemer v. Cantrell et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
THOMAS MATTHEW RIEMER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:23-cv-5161-TLB-CDC
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL; DEPUTY
CODY REX; and APRN KELLEY HINELY 	DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court are:
• 	Plaintiff Thomas Matthew Riemer’s Motion to Compel as to Defendants Sheriff Jay
Cantrell and Deputy Cody Rex (ECF No. 141);
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendant APRN Kelley Hinely (ECF No. 152),
and Defendant Hinely’s Response in Opposition (ECF No. 156);
• 	Defendant Hinely’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 157) and Brief in Support (ECF No.
158); and
• 	Two Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 159, 160) filed by Plaintiff.
For the reasons given below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendants Cantrell and Rex is
GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendant APRN Kelley Hinely is DENIED; and
Defendant Hinely’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s two Motions for Extension of Time are
MOOT.
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendants Cantrell and Rex (ECF No. 141)
The Initial Scheduling Order in this case imposed a deadline of October 10, 2025, for the
Defendants to “provide Plaintiff with a copy of all incident reports documenting incidents
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
referenced in the Plaintiff’s complaint, including any color photographs, and video footage of the
same,” along with “a copy of all medical requests, grievances, and photographs in the Plaintiff’s
file, as well as any written policies, which relate to the facts recited in Plaintiff’s complaint.” See
ECF No. 126, p. 1. That Order also set a deadline of December 24, 2025, for all discovery in this
matter to be completed. See id. at 2.
On October 22, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 128), asserting that he had not
yet received any initial disclosures from Defendants Cantrell and Rex as required by the Initial
Scheduling Order. 	Those Defendants responded that they had repeatedly attempted to mail
Plaintiff “all documents in [their] possession which relate to the allegations in the Complaint,” but
that the packages kept being returned because Plaintiff kept being transferred to new facilities
before the mailings arrived. See ECF No. 130, ¶ 2–5. They attached proof of those mailings to
their response. See ECF Nos. 130-1, 130-2. On November 7, the Court entered an Order granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion, stating:
Plaintiff’s last Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 129) indicated that he will
soon be transferred to his final destination facility. 	Once Plaintiff arrives at his
final destination facility he should file another notice of change [of] address,
following which Defendants should promptly re-send the discovery documents
described in their Response (ECF No. 130) to his Motion to Compel.
(ECF No. 131). Later that same day, Plaintiff filed that notice of change of address. See ECF No.
132.
On December 16, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline to complete discovery, on
the grounds that he still had not received any initial disclosures from Defendants Cantrell and Rex.
See ECF No. 138. The Court granted this motion in part, extending the discovery cutoff date to
January 14, 2026. See ECF No. 139.
On January 14, Plaintiff mailed to the Court a Motion to Compel, which was received and
filed on January 20, stating that he still had not received any initial disclosures from Defendants
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Cantrell and Rex, and that he also had not received any response from those Defendants to
additional discovery requests that he had mailed to them on December 26, 2025, a copy of which
he attached to his Motion. 	See ECF No. 141. 	Defendants Cantrell and Rex never filed any
response to this Motion. However, they did file a motion for summary judgment a couple of weeks
later. See ECF No. 148. The Court entered an Order staying Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to this
motion for summary judgment (as well as to another motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendant Hinely) pending resolution of Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel. See ECF No. 155.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may file a motion to
compel if the opposing party fails to answer an interrogatory or fails to produce documents. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A). Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of
Arkansas requires any party opposing a motion to file a statement of opposition within fourteen
days from that motion’s date of service. As noted above, Defendants Cantrell and Rex have not
filed any response to Plaintiff’s Motion, and their deadline to do so under the Local Rules has
expired. 	Rule 7.2(f) of the Local Rules states that “[t]he failure to timely respond to any
nondispositive motion . . . shall be an adequate basis, without more, for granting the relief sought
in said motion.”
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 141) as to Defendants Cantrell and
Rex will be GRANTED as follows: Defendants Cantrell and Rex are ordered to provide to
Plaintiff the initial disclosures and discovery responses that are the subject of his Motion no later
than May 1, 2026. Upon mailing this discovery to Plaintiff, Defendants Cantrell and Rex must
file proof of that mailing in this matter. If they contend that they already provided this discovery
to Plaintiff at his current address prior to the entry of the instant Order, then they must either file
proof of that previous mailing, or else re-send said discovery to Plaintiff and file proof of the new
mailing.
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendant Hinely (ECF No. 152); Defendant
Hinely’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 157)
On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff mailed to the Court a Motion to Compel as to Defendant
Hinely, which the Court received and filed on February 9. In that Motion, Plaintiff contends that
he received discovery responses from Defendant Hinely on January 26, and that these responses
were accompanied by a letter dated January 15. He asserts that this violates the discovery cutoff
date of January 14 that this Court had previously imposed. See ECF No. 152, p. 1. Plaintiff also
argues that Defendant Hinely’s responses to his discovery requests are deficient in various ways.
See generally id. However, Plaintiff has not provided copies of either his discovery requests or
Defendant Hinely’s responses, and has instead provided only general descriptions of these items.
See generally id. In her Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant Hinely informs the Court that
Plaintiff propounded his discovery requests to her on December 11, 2025, and that she provided
her responses and objections on January 14. See ECF No. 156, p. 3.
At the time Plaintiff propounded these discovery requests (December 11), the discovery
cutoff date was December 24. 	See ECF No. 134. 	That deadline was subsequently extended to
January 14. See ECF No. 139. However, the deadline for responding to timely discovery requests
is provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which imposes a deadline of thirty days after
service within which to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Thirty days after December 11, 2025 was January 10, 2026,
which was a Saturday; thus, under the Federal Rules, the response deadline was automatically
extended to the next business day: January 12, a Monday. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Then,
because Plaintiff’s discovery requests were sent by mail, an additional three days are added,
making Defendant Hinely’s response deadline January 15, 2026. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 	So,
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
regardless of whether Defendant Hinely mailed her responses on January 14 or January 15, her
responses were timely under the Federal Rules.
However, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel does not comply with this Court’s Initial
Scheduling Order. Specifically, that Order requires that before any party files a motion to compel,
“the party must in good faith confer or attempt to confer with the opposing party in an effort to
resolve the discovery matter without court action,” and must certify in the motion “that the movant
has so conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).” See ECF No. 126, p. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion
does not contain any such certification, and Defendant Hinely asserts that no such conferral
occurred before Plaintiff’s Motion was filed. See ECF No. 156, p. 4. Under Local Rule 7.2(g),
this is a sufficient basis for summarily dismissing a motion to compel. 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel as to Defendant Hinely (ECF No. 152) is DENIED.1
Defendant Hinely also filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See ECF No.
157. However, because Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is being denied for failure to comply with
this Court’s Initial Scheduling Order and Local Rules, that Motion to Strike is MOOT.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 159, 160)
On February 12, 2026, this Court granted a previous Motion for Extension of Time (ECF
No. 153) that Plaintiff filed, ordering that “Plaintiff’s deadlines to respond to Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 144, 148) are STAYED, pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 141, 152). New summary judgment response deadlines
will be set by separate order, following resolution of Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel.” See ECF
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendants Cantrell and Rex also
did not contain any certification that he had conferred or attempted to confer with those Defendants
prior to filing that Motion. See generally ECF No. 141. However, as discussed in Section 1 of
this Opinion and Order above, the failure to produce that was alleged in that Motion had already
been the subject of several previous rounds of conferral and motion practice, rendering further
conferral on the topic unnecessary.
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
No. 155. However, around the same time, Plaintiff filed several other Motions for Extension of
Time (ECF Nos. 159, 160) regarding the same deadlines, perhaps because he was not yet aware
that his previous Motion for Extension had already been granted. Because Plaintiff’s requested
extension has already been granted, those additional Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos.
159, 160) are MOOT.
Although the Court has now issued rulings on Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, the matters
discussed therein will not be fully resolved until Defendants Cantrell and Rex file proof of
compliance as discussed in Section 1 of this Opinion and Order above. 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s
deadlines to respond to both pending Motions for Summary Judgment remains STAYED, and
will be reset by separate order once Defendants Cantrell and Rex have filed that proof of
compliance.
Finally, the Court notes that in Plaintiff’s various Motions to Compel, he complains of
not yet having received the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Out of an abundance
of caution, the Court will order all Defendants to immediately re-send their Motions for Summary
Judgment, Briefs in Support, Statements of Facts in Support, and supporting exhibits, to Plaintiff
at his current address that is listed on the docket, and then to immediately file in this case proof
of said mailings.
4. 	Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
• 	Plaintiff Thomas Matthew Riemer’s Motion to Compel as to Defendants Sheriff Jay
Cantrell and Deputy Cody Rex (ECF No. 141) is GRANTED;
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Defendant APRN Kelley Hinely (ECF No. 152) is
DENIED; and
• 	Defendant Hinely’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 157) and Plaintiff’s two Motions for
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 159, 160) are all MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants must immediately re-send their
Motions for Summary Judgment, Briefs in Support, Statements of Facts in Support, and supporting
exhibits, to Plaintiff at his current address that is listed on the docket, and must then immediately
file in this case proof of said mailings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Cantrell and Rex must provide to Plaintiff
the initial disclosures and discovery responses that are the subject of his Motion to Compel (ECF
No. 141) no later than May 1, 2026. Upon mailing this discovery to Plaintiff, Defendants Cantrell
and Rex must file proof of that mailing in this matter. If they contend that they already provided
this discovery to Plaintiff at his current address prior to the entry of the instant Order, then they
must either file proof of that previous mailing, or else re-send said discovery to Plaintiff and file
proof of the new mailing. Once Defendants Cantrell and Rex have completed their compliance
with this Order, deadlines for Plaintiff to respond to both pending Motions for Summary Judgment
will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-05161-TLB Document 169 Filed 04/17/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>