original story published 4/8/24
JONESBORO, Ark. – A man who gave pony rides in the summer heat years prior in Jonesboro is suing numerous people including city officials in a Federal lawsuit the judge described politely as “winding and obtuse.”
In his 115-page self-authored complaint, filed pro se in the United States District Court Eastern District Northern Division, plaintiff Stephen Ward – who refers to himself online as Mr. Scary – alleges conspiracy, violation of his rights, libel, and many, many other claims. The lawsuit is filed against several Jonesboro officials, animal advocates, interested parties, and one reporter: Harold Copenhaver, Larry Rogers, Jeffrey Moore, Wannda Turner, Lisa Trevathan, Kimberly Randall, Melissa Kathryn Morrison, Simrit Kaur (alias), Stan Morris (this reporter), and Carol Duncan.
Ward’s grievance stems from a series of events in 2022 which began with online complaints about someone offering pony rides in the summer heat on pavement at parking lots of businesses in Jonesboro. The city cracked down on the practice by passing Ordinance 22:034, requiring liability insurance and permission from the owner of the property. The ordinance, passed September 6, 2022 by the Jonesboro City Council, gives the city the right to stop any such activity if there’s not proper documentation, if there is a safety hazard or health concern to the public, or if there’s clear risk to the animal’s health.
(a)
Any vendor, group, person, or business wishing to charge a fee, seek monetary donations, or receive any financial benefit for any activities associated with animal rides, handling, or displaying any animal in the City of Jonesboro must possess and display, or make immediately available for inspection upon demand of any representative of the city, proof of current liability insurance of no less than $1,000,000.00 and possess written permission personally endorsed by the property owner or legally responsible party for the property on which they are located. Said endorsement must include a valid contact number for verification.
(b)
Any vendor, group, person or business involved in the selling or giving away of animals in a public location on property they do not own must possess written permission personally endorsed by the property owner or legally responsible party for the property on which they are located. Said endorsement must include a valid contact number for verification.
(c)
The city retains the right to stop any such activity should it be determined that there is not proper documentation or that a safety hazard or health concern exists to the public, or that the conditions place a clear risk to the animal(s) health and well-being.
(d)
Animal rescue and/or adoption organizations that have been verified by the city are specifically excluded from the insurance requirements of this section.
But because the city would not allow Ward to continue to sell uninsured pony rides on private property without permission, Ward claims the city infringed upon his rights.
“The Defendants acts were of complex design, preplanned and perpetrated upon him (according to the facts) without any regard for his rights granted to him by the United States Constitution,” according to section two under General Allegations. “The Defendants under color of the law preplanned an outcome that each Defendant played a very specific role intended to discriminate, seize, harass, humiliate, defame, [sic] ruin the Plaintiff because of his religion and for exercising his constitutional rights granted to him by the United States Constitution.”
Ward, who claims to be a practicing Muslim, says throughout his pony rides, he would hum Islamic hymns and songs. He alleges that this was among the chief reasons why the city and all of the other defendants unfairly targeted him.
The lawsuit barely made it into the Federal court system, according to the order filed by the judge, who wrote that the complaint can be “politely described as winding and obtuse.”
“The Court has done its level best to wade through the muck of this Amended Complaint in order to separate the wheat from the chaff,” wrote US District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. “Many of the claims trying to be stated in the Amended Complaint are deficient—either because they are pled in a conclusory manner or because they are legally invalid.“
The Complaint Itself
The complaint claims that Ward’s problems began on September 27, 2021, when he was “almost murdered” by his landlord. Apparently, Ward was evicted at that time, which he claims was unlawful. Ward said after the murder attempt with a 4 ft “axe [sic] handle,” he was barred from returning to the property and as a result, claims he lost everything except a single pony. So, Ward said because he was “instantly homeless,” he exercised his First Amendment right to panhandle while using his pony “consistent with our Muslim faith.” Ward then quoted the Quran, saying, “Prophet Muhammad took a night trip to heaven aboard a trusty winged pony-horse-mule-ish creature called Buraq.”
This begins the trend in the lawsuit of Ward referring to his activities with the pony rides as “panhandling.” His effort to classify private business activity as panhandling appears to be in the hope that it will make it protected speech. Courts have repeatedly held that laws prohibiting individuals from begging for money in public locations are unconstitutional.
Ward said in section 27 of the complaint that he would panhandle at different “public accommodation spots throughout the city.” But Ward then lists a number of privately owned businesses, which are not constitutionally protected locations to panhandle. Among the businesses are Golden Corral, Huddle House, Arbys, a gas station at Red Wolf and East Highland, and other private property locations.
In March 2022, Ward claims he was told rumors from “customers” (his word) that the mayor, animal control officer, and animal rights groups were planning to shut his pony rides down because, “they didn’t like Muslims and were getting tired of seeing the Plaintiff panhandling around town.” Ward accuses the mayor, animal control’s Larry Rogers and Jeffrey Moore, and animal advocates Wannda Turner and Lisa Trevathan, of starting a malicious scheme to shut down his business activities.
Ward alleges in the months after, despite him being on private property and selling a service without insurance, he was illegally shut down from his activities. He even said that two animal control officers stated he was “just a white trash Muslim and the mayor wanted him gone.”
Many on social media began posting about the subject during this time. Complaints from the public were sent to both animal advocacy groups and to NEA Report. At least one person posted a tip regarding the practice to the NEA Report News Tips group, a public group managed by NEA Report to solicit tips and posts about the news.
Under section 59 of the complaint, Ward falsely claims that this reporter republished Wannda Turner’s Facebook post regarding the practice on the NEA Report Facebook page. However, NEA Report never covered the case (until now). Posts were made to the NEA Report News Tips group about the subject but none were by this reporter or NEA Report. Ward then claims NEA Report refused to publish Ward’s post responding to the allegations. In reality, Ward made numerous incoherent posts including personal attacks on pages where nothing was ever written about him.
Later in section 101, Ward seemingly acknowledges this by pointing out that the grievance against NEA Report is based on a group admin (there are multiple) approving a news tip that he claims was false and defamatory to the news group. The purpose of the group’s post approval is to screen out spam comments or other unsavory content and is not meant to verify credibility of any claim. Ward then attempts to correlate post approval with allowing every user on Facebook to be protected.
Ward’s peculiar requests continue with him writing about city employees, “They claim immunity protection and I would like to be immune as well so that they don’t attempt anything like what they have done again. I am not a shareholder in the City of Jonesboro Corporation and as a natural human being I have reserved all my human rights and have the right to be left alone as I have not granted anyone in the city of Jonesboro city [sic] any authority over me.”
Ward writes that he is qualified as a lawyer and intends to take the California BAR exam. He then questions if he will “ACTUALLY” have equal access to the court with a meaningful trial, as his own attorney. He also questions his right to not have his case dismissed for technical reasons.
In the order approving portions of the amended complaint, the judge actually hinted that those technical reasons may possibly be the end of this legal matter.
“But a note of caution for the Plaintiff is in order. Although these surviving claims are close enough to the line for the Court to let them pass through the screening stage, they may well be vulnerable to a strong motion to dismiss. Additionally, there may be a strong argument that the defamation/libel/slander claims are so unrelated to the federal claims that the Court should refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them.”
The court’s order states that the complaints that are the only potentially viable claims are:
(1) Mr. Ward’s § 1983 claims—to the extent they are based on purported violations
of the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause—against Copenhaver, Rogers, and Moore for
(a) the alleged April 22, 2022 shut-down of Mr. Ward’s pony rides/panhandling activities and
(b) the passage or enforcement of the ordinance referenced in the First Amended Complaint(2) Mr. Ward’s § 1985 claims—to the extent they are premised on a conspiracy concerning the same incidents as just identified in (1) above—against Copenhaver, Rogers, Moore, and Turner;
(3) Mr. Ward’s § 1983 claim—to the extent it is based on the Fourth Amendment—against Moore for the April 22, 2022 interaction with Ward;
(4) Mr. Ward’s defamation/libel/slander claims against Turner, Trevathan, Morris, Randall, Kaur, and Morrison; and
(5) Mr. Ward’s FOIA claims against Copenhaver, Rogers, Moore, and Duncan. All other claims are out. And the surviving claims above are limited to the specific Defendants the Court has detailed.
The judge appeared to be losing patience with Ward in his order and wrote that, “Mr. Ward should know that the Court would look favorably on a request for the appointment of pro bono counsel in this case. If Mr. Ward wants to pursue that option, he should immediately file a motion for it.”
The judge ordered that the clerk prepare and deliver summons, the complaint, and the order, to the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas without requiring the prepayment of fees and costs, for service at the addresses provided by Ward.
Ward took screen grabs of the service papers from the US Marshals and posted them to several yard sale groups in an attempt to paint the defendants as the subject of a “manhunt.” His Facebook posts, which are more defamatory than anything he is alleging was written about him, conveniently left out the complaint.
Mr. Scary’s Goals
Ward is seeking monetary damages from each defendant exceeding $70,000, although he seems to believe prevailing in an actual trial setting is unlikely, because he is repeatedly offering settlements via email to the defendants. But Wannda Turner thinks he’s trying to do exactly what he’s accusing others of – smearing people online who made him mad.
“Oh yes, this is a vengeful act in order to hurt the reputation of individuals because of the pony rides,” Turner told NEA Report. “It’s all about revenge and I also think he’s a megalomaniac. This is all about him being famous, I honestly believe that. I think he’s looking for accolades by hurting other people.”
Turner, who spends her retirement volunteering to help rescue and advocate for animals, is now faced with the same dilemma several others are. Although the government employees will have free legal defense from the Arkansas Municipal League, she will not. Turner said she is looking at dipping into her 401K to hire an attorney. She said she may also need a loan.
But she said if she had it to do over, she would still speak up for the animals.
“I’ve given this a lot of thought and a lot of prayer,” Turner said. “I’m sorry everyone has gotten dragged into this because as he said, it’s my fault. But if the judge asked me tomorrow if I would do it again, I’m sorry, but I’d have to say yes. What I did was for the betterment of the animals and that’s what I try to do everywhere.”
Some of the defendants have been served by US Marshals but several, including Turner, have yet to be served papers.
However, Ward’s anger shifted over the weekend to the judge, himself.
On Monday, Ward sent a rambling email with 47 attachments to the defendants where he said he was submitting a motion to disqualify the judge for his “judicial misconduct.” Ward took great offense at his lawsuit being described as “obtuse” and as a “muck.”
Additionally, Ward said he was submitting a motion to transfer the case to the United States Supreme Court. He also included proposed orders to force Facebook, Google, and AT&T to turn over data related to the alias of one of the people commenting negatively about him.
“A biased Judge wont work so we need to prepare to solve this or prepare to fight this,” Ward wrote. “I simply do not care what everyone chooses. Due to the Sploiation [sic] of evidence I am entitled to a summary Judgement [sic] against every one of you. I did send a litigation hold notice and everyone ignored it. Carol and the city workers went a few steps further and intentionally destroyed evidence and then wrote about it in their emails which I have.”
Ward continues on, warning the defendants not to expect any dismissals as the judge referenced in his order. He signs the email “Best regards” and “Steve” before including “regards” again after his name.
To the extent Doc. 23 is asking for me to recuse myself from this case, that request is denied. Nothing in the Motion (or outside of it) requires my recusal under the recusal statute or the applicable judicial cannons. To the extent this document is a request for me to transfer this case to the Supreme Court, that request is denied as wholly meritless. To the extent this document is a request for me to grant an interlocutory appeal, it is denied as failing to meet the requirements for such an appeal. To the extent this document is a request for action addressed to the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Eighth Circuit, or the Supreme Court (as opposed to requesting action from me), it is not appropriate for my comment at this time.
Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 4/11/2024
Ward also said he was filing a complaint against City Attorney Carol Duncan’s license with the Arkansas Judiciary’s Office of the Committee on Professional Conduct.
Although no one can predict the next chapter in the legal drama, Wannda Turner promised that Ward’s suspected goal of stopping her from the work she does in the community would not be achieved.
“Everybody mentioned in here actually works to try to do good work and he’s trying to stop that,” Turner said. “But he’s not going to stop me.”
Updated April 28, 2024:
Ward continues to post false information online that there is a “manhunt” for several of the defendants he has yet to have properly served in the gibberish lawsuit.
Ward did obtain a minor victory on April 15, however. The judge ordered parties to provide written answers to his questions related to the identity of “Simrit Kaur.” Several of the parties have responded thus far, court filings show, with no one having any knowledge of the identity of the subject in question.
However, Ward’s online posts have failed to mention the numerous denials he has incurred since this article was published.
As was updated above, the judge denied his request to move the case to the United States Supreme Court.
The judge showed an abundance of caution and allowed the request to be considered by the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 24, the court of appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus.
Furthermore, on April 24, the judge denied Mr. Scary’s request to file court documents electronically. The judge mentioned the “quantity and quality” of all of the filings by Ward as one of several reasons it would be a bad idea.
In part, the judge wrote:
“And although some situations might warrant a court to conditionally extend ECF filing privileges to a pro se party and then revoke those privileges if the system is intentionally or unintentionally abused or misused, other situations counsel against such an experiment,” Judge Lee Rudofsky wrote. “This is one of the latter situations. Given the quantity and quality of filings by Plaintiff to date, I believe allowing the Plaintiff to use the ECF system for filing would, in the end, cause significant inefficiencies for the Court and Court staff with respect to documents filed or named incorrectly, inappropriately, or otherwise problematically. ”
There have also been several court filings that could upend Mr. Scary’s entire lawsuit.
On April 19, animal rescue advocate and defendant Lisa Trevathan’s attorney, Sam Waddell, entered the case and made a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In the motion to dismiss, Waddell argues that Ward’s complaint against Trevathan is for defamation or libel – a claim arising from state law and unconnected to federal claims. The motion also argues that Trevathan was not properly served.
Then on April 22, another defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Kimberly Randall filed the motion pro se, like the plaintiff, meaning representing herself. Once again, a defendant argued that the allegation for defamation or libel arises from state law and is not related to the federal claims made by Ward.
Randall finally pleads with the court to stop allowing Ward to use the legal system as a tool of harassment.
As of April 28, the judge has not decided on the motions to dismiss by the defendants.
FURTHER READING:
Updated April 29, 2024:
Ward filed 11 new items in the court case on Monday, April 29.
In his first filing, the Motion to Strike Lisa Trevathan’s Motion to Dismiss & And [sic] Affirmative Defenses & Brief in Support, Ward offers a statement to Judge Rudofsky, saying “he made many unprofessional and biased statements which were sent a signal to the Defendants that the Judge was planning to dismiss the case which caused statements from Defendant Simrit Kaur (Alias) “That’s why you’ve been told it will be dismissed.”
Ward says his view is that the judge has every intention of “ignoring all the evidence provided.” Ward alleges the judge has no intention of allowing a fair trial and hope to offer the “illusion of fairness” in hopes that the plaintiff wouldn’t notice or understand the “miscarriage of justice.”
Ward argues then that his written attacks against the judge’s integrity are allowed to be included in his motion. Once again, he brings up the words “obtuse” and “muck” equating each with “stupid” and “manure” respectively.
After several comments related to the recent denials Ward has received in the case, Ward goes tit for tat, offering his own denial to the judge:
Ward makes several arguments, at length, against Trevathan’s motion to dismiss, which can be read in full here:
Plaintiff Motion April 29, 2024
After several similar filings, Ward seeks to have a warrant issued for the arrest of several of the defendants in the case for not answering the order by the judge requesting the identity of the alleged fake Facebook account involved in trolling Ward. Ward’s motion contains several falsehoods, including that this reporter told him the identity of the fake account was known (it is not, and Ward has never spoken to this reporter). Ward asks that the order be issued at “Sonic speed as the Plaintiff is on a Court imposed time limit.”
Ward then sought to have the answers stricken from the record by Jonesboro Mayor Harold Copenhaver, City Attorney Carol Duncan, Animal Control Sergeant Larry Rogers, and Jeffrey Moore.
The amount of nonsense is preventing them from putting up a good legal argument as they are too busy trying to create imaginary contracts, duties for the Plaintiff and hide behind immunities that DO NOT exists for them, I grew out of stuff like imaginary land when I was 10 or 12, so I cannot properly understand their type of wisdom, so I am going to simply deal in contracts, agreements, common sense, the facts, the codes and the duties
that are ACTUALLY known to exist. I would enjoy sticking to reality if the Defendants and their Attorney’s don’t mind.– Steve Ward
Be the first to comment