City Responds to Injunction Motion in Anderson Suit, More Judges Recuse

JONESBORO, Ark. – Several more judges have recused themselves in the matter of Rachel Anderson vs. the City of Jonesboro, its mayor, and police chief.

This comes as the City of Jonesboro filed an official response to the request by Anderson’s attorneys for a preliminary injunction.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Defendants Respond

On behalf of the defendants in the case, Christopher M. Stevens filed the response to the request on Dec. 22. The response says, “the plaintiff can prove neither success on the merits of her underlying claim nor that she will be irreparably harmed without the injunction. As a result, her motion should be denied.”

“Rule 65 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions. It requires that a court consider two issues: (1) whether irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction, and (2) whether the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.”

Under section IV Argument, the defendants say Anderson is unlikely to succeed in her claims. “Plaintiff cannot prove she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that she was unconstitutionally denied the right to a name-clearing hearing. Nor can she show that she will suffer irreparable harm.”

The response defends against the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and challenges the claim’s merit by detailing the lack of evidence and procedural missteps.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s claim fails due to several reasons:

• Failure to Request a Name-Clearing Hearing: The defendant alleges the plaintiff did not request a name-clearing hearing before filing the lawsuit and that courts have previously ruled that the absence of such a request before litigation bars any recovery.
• Insufficient Evidence of Stigmatization: The defendant contests that the statements made by the employer (Chief Elliott’s termination letter and subsequent statements) were not public accusations that could constitute a deprivation of the plaintiff’s liberty interest. The defendant asserts that the statements were factual and did not attack the plaintiff’s character in a manner necessary to establish a constitutional violation.
• Absence of Irreparable Harm: The defendant challenges the plaintiff’s claim of irreparable harm to her ability to secure employment or her reputation in the community. It’s argued that reputational harm doesn’t justify a preliminary injunction under Arkansas law.

The response aims to disprove Anderson’s claim by highlighting legal precedents and lack of substantial evidence to support the alleged constitutional violation.

Read the full 15-page court filing here: Defendants Response

More Recusals

As of this publication, two more judges have recused themselves from the case due to conflicts. That makes three who have recused, thus far.

On Dec. 20, as we previously reported here, Judge Pam Honeycutt recused from the case due to a conflict. Earlier today, Dec. 27, Judge Melissa Richardson recused due to a conflict and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Less than half an hour later, Judge Richard Lusby also recused from the case, due to a conflict.

Presently, the case is assigned to Judge Charles “Skip” Mooney, Jr.