Status of Monitored 
	Subcommittee on Litigation Reports
	 of the Arkansas Legislative Council
Agency:	Richard Weiss, et al	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Roger McLemore, et  al	Attorney	C. Burt Newell
Defendant:	Steve Dozier, et al	Attorney:	Patricia Bell
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV 2005-14869	Filed:	11/21/2005
Relief Sought:	Money damages.
Issue:	ASPRS members brought a class action seeking higher funding in their retirement accounts for 
	an approximate two-year period. Prior to this period, ASP officers received expense checks for 
	uniforms & travel that were not made a part of their base pay. During the period at issue, ASP 
	folded $3,500 in its officers' base pay for these expenses as opposed to providing separate 
	checks. Plaintiff class, who were officers who joined the DROP prior to the base pay increase, 
	object that they did not get this base pay increase calculated into their retirement.
Case History:	State defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which was denied. They then filed an appeal 
	to the AR Supreme Court. The case has been fully briefed.  Court to schedule oral 
	arguments.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Steven D. Mitchell	Attorney	Jeff Rozenzweig
Defendant:	Sex Offender Screening	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV2006-10088	Filed:	09/01/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	Petitioner Mitchell, a teacher, was convicted of sexual assault (2nd degree) for engaging in 
	inappropriate sexual behavior with at least two victims, both of whom Mitchell alleged initiated 
	the sexual contact. He seeks a reduction in his level 3 assessment in circuit court.
Case History:	Based upon the decision of the AR Supreme Court in Munson v. AR Dept of 
	Correction, in which the court held that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC
	 (Sex Offender Assessment Committee) must contain written findings of fact and 
	conclusions of law. State counsel has filed a motion to remand the case to the SOAC. 
	Currently waiting for Mitchell's counsel to sign an agreed order of remand, which will 
	then be submitted to the circuit court.  Order for Remand filed.  Awaiting completion 
	of Final Administrative Order by SOAC.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	1	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	<None>	Report #:	03-86
Plaintiff:	W.R. GRACE AND CO., ET AL	Attorney	<NA>
Defendant:	VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES	Attorney:	Patrick Hollingsworth
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	US BANKRUPTCY COURT	Docket 	01-01139	Filed:	07/10/2003
Relief Sought:	Money damages.
Issue:	Outside counsel has been retained to represent the interest of various state agencies, including 
	the filing of proof of claim documents, in several bankruptcy asbestos cases.
Case History:	Although W.R. Grace has objected to claims filed on behalf of Arkansas state agencies, 
	outside counsel has reached an agreement with Grace for settlement of claims 
	objections, and is working on a satisfactory settlement agreement.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.  Settlement Agreement approved on behalf of the state and returned to W. 
	R. Grace on 8/29/07.
Agency:	Arkansas State Police    	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Marie Caffey	Attorney	Alvin L. Simes
Defendant:	Chris Miller, et al.	Attorney:	C. Joseph Cordi, Jr.
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, EASTERN DISTRICT	Docket 	4:05CV000011	Filed:	08/17/2005
Relief Sought:	Compensatory and punitive damages; and injunctive relief.
Issue:	Plaintiff Caffey alleges that an ASP child abuse investigator, among others, violated her civil 
	rights by arresting her without probable cause for political and racial reasons.
Case History:	Case is currently set for jury trial the week of 11/26/2007.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Governor Mike Huckabee	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Friends of Eudora Pub Schools	Attorney	J. L. Green
Defendant:	Mike Huckabee, et al	Attorney:	Matt McCoy
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, EASTERN DISTRICT	Docket 	5:06CV0044 	Filed:	02/24/2006
Relief Sought:	Declaratory and injuctive relief, a temporary restraining order and compensatory 
	damages.
Issue:	Plaintiffs are requesting that the court stop the enforcement of all school consolidation or 
	annexation proceeding affecting the Eudora School District.
Case History:	The district court administratively terminated the case on 9/1/2006 pending entry of a 
	final order in Lakeview School Dist v Huckabee, affording the plaintiffs 30 days after 
	the entry of the Lakeview order to reopen the case. On 6/29/2007, plaintiffs moved to
	 reopen the case and have requested a scheduling order.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.  Motion to Dismiss is pending.
	2	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	Correction Department	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Terrick Terrell Nooner	Attorney	Julie C. Brain
Defendant:	Larry Norris, et al.	Attorney:	Mark A. Hagemeier
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, EASTERN DISTRICT, PINE BLUFF	Docket 	5:06CV110	Filed:	05/01/2006
Relief Sought:	Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
Issue:	Inmate Plaintiff alleges that the method of Lethal Injection utilized by the Arkansas 
	Department of Correction Defendants in inhumane and violates his rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983,
	 and the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Case History:	Nooner is a death-row inmate.  He challenges the method of death by lethal injection 
	under § 1983.  We have filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds, including failure 
	to exhaust administrative remedies, successive habeas petition, failure to state a claim 
	under § 1983, and laches.  Nooner's counsel, the federal public defender's office has 
	responded, and we are awaiting a ruling.  Also, the US Supreme Court should address this
	 issue by the end of its current term-- end of June 2006--in the case Hill v. 
	McDonough.  A ruling in Hill may dispose of this issue in Nooner.
Current Status:	Monitoring.  Consolidated with Williams, Jr v. Norris, USDC, EDAR, 5:07CV00173.  A
	 Motion for Summary Judgment is pending.
Agency:	State Police	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Richard M. Stufflebeam	Attorney	Doug Norwood
Defendant:	Jeff W. Harris	Attorney:	Sherri L. Robinson
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, WESTERN DISTRICT	Docket 	CV 06-5094	Filed:	05/24/2006
Relief Sought:	Compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and attorney's fees.
Issue:	Plaintiff Stufflebeam was a passenger in a car that did not have tags. ASP Trooper Harris 
	stopped the vehicle, at which time he asked for identification of passenger Stufflebeam. When 
	Stufflebeam refused, he was arrested for Obstruction of Governmental Operations. Plaintiff 
	alleges federal constitutional violations.
Case History:	District court granted defendant Harris's Motion to Dismiss. Stufflebeam appealed to 
	the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit.   Filed Motion to Dismiss on 
	September 4, 2007.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	3	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	ABC	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Scott L. Beau & Wyncroft, LLC	Attorney	Mr. Philip E. Kaplan
Defendant:	Robert Moore , et al	Attorney:	Sherri Robinson
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, EASTERN DISTRICT, WESTERN 	Docket 	4:05CV903	Filed:	06/22/2005
Relief Sought:	Declaratory judgment and injunction.
Issue:	Plaintiffs are seeking judgment declaring Ark. Code 3-2-403, 3-2-205 and 3-7-106 
	unconstitutional and in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and 
	an injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing those statutes.
Case History:	Committee requested this case be monitored.  Case is no longer stayed.  Plaintiffs filed 
	a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, we responded and filed a cross Motion for 
	Judgment on the pleadins on September 5, 2007.
Current Status:	Defendants' motion to dismiss denied, answer and Rule 26(f) report filed.  Case 
	scheduled for trial in June 2006, but both parties believe that the case will be resolved 
	on cross motions for summary judgment.  A group of wholesalers and retailers filed a 
	motion to intervene in the case and the motion was denied.  Plaintiff filed a MSJ to 
	which we responded and filed a cross MSJ.  All motions have been filed and we are 
	awaiting a decision by the court.  On 07/11/06, the Court issued an order staying the 
	federal case pending the outcome of the state case, Moon Distributors v. DFA.  Court 
	continued the stay while the state court case is on appeal.  Plaintiffs have filed a 
	motion requesting that the Court reconsider the stay.  Court denied the motion to 
	reconsider the stay.  Case is stayed pending outcome of state court case.
Agency:	State Of Arkansas	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Theresa Bedford	Attorney	Sheila F. Campbell
Defendant:	State of Arkansas	Attorney:	Colin R. Jorgensen
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	Arkansas Claims Commission	Docket 	07-0665-CC	Filed:	02/06/2007
Relief Sought:	Money damages.
Issue:	Claimant Bedford filed her action with the Arkansas State Claims Court seeking monetary relief 
	in the amount of $250,000 after the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed her forgery conviction
	 in Crittenden County, Arkansas.
Case History:	The Commission dismissed Bedford's claim. At Bedford's request, the Commission then 
	set aside the dismissal. Bedford subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, and the State
	 filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted.  Beford filed a Notice of Appeal.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	4	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	South Ark. Community College	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Marcia White	Attorney	William C. Plouffe, Jr.
Defendant:	Terry Puckett, et al	Attorney:	Jeremy C. Lasiter
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, WESTERN DISTRICT	Docket 	05-1103	Filed:	10/24/2005
Relief Sought:	Compensatory and punitive damages, front pay, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
Issue:	Plaintiff alleges her constitutional rights were violated by sexual, racial, and disability 
	discrimination.  Discriminations that plaintiff alleges are: 1) sexual innuendoes, jokes and 
	harassment; 2) racial discrimination for the reasons that unqualified white people would be hired 
	at higher salaries and also racial innuendoes, jokes, and harassment; and 3) plaintiff alleges she 
	became disabled while she was an employee at South AR Community College and that she was 
	terminated because of her disability.
Case History:	Answer filed on 2/27/2006. Trial is scheduled for 11/5/2007.  Discovery ongoing.  Trial
	 date previously scheduled for 11/5/07 has been continued.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Pulaski Technical College	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Gregory Crosby	Attorney	Austin Porter, Jr.
Defendant:	Pulaski Tech Board of Trustees	Attorney:	Matt McCoy
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	USDC, WESTERN DISTRICT	Docket 	4-06-CV-01003	Filed:	08/16/2006
Relief Sought:	Reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney's fees
Issue:	Plaintiff Crosby, who was terminated from his law enforcement position at Pulaski Tech, alleges
	 that his termination resulted from his testimony on behalf of another terminated Pulaski Tech 
	officer regarding her Title VII complaint, which ultimately was dismissed in federal court.
Case History:	Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is pending. The case is set for
	 trial for the week of 8/27/2007.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Department of Correction	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	James R. Munson, ADC 112106	Attorney	Pro Se
Defendant:	Department of Corrections	Attorney:	Susannah C. Raney
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	pulaski county circuit - 12TH DIVISION	Docket 	CV-2005-9932	Filed:	07/28/2005
Relief Sought:	Class and time restored/court filing fees/hearing
Issue:	Inmate plaintiff is alleging he received a false disciplinary after he filed a grievance regarding 
	termination of his job at the Grimes Unit.  The charging officer of plaintiff's disciplinary was 
	plaintiff's former supervisor Terry Murphy.
Case History:	Hearing to be scheduled shortly.
Current Status:	Active.
	5	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	Board Of Education	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Fort Smith School, et al	Attorney	James M. Llewellyn, Jr.
Defendant:	Board of Education, et al	Attorney:	Scott Richardson
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CIV-2005-7485	Filed:	05/24/2005
Relief Sought:	Injunctive relief and damages.
Issue:	This is an illegal exaction case that challenges how the General Assembly appropriates state tax 
	dollars to fund education. Plaintiffs allege that the foundation funding amount should always 
	increase by at least as much as the increase in the amount of money generated by the Uniform 
	Rate of Tax levied by Amendment 74. Plaintiffs also allege that the State cannot consider 
	Educational Excellence Fund money in funding education; that this money must be paid to the 
	school districts in addition to the foundation funding.
Case History:	Trial is currently scheduled for 11/20/2007.  Defendants' Motion for Summary 
	Judgment was filed on 8/28/07.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Bobby Joe England	Attorney	Chaney Taylor, Jr.
Defendant:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV2006-87	Filed:	01/05/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of Assessment Level.
Issue:	Petitioner England was convicted of five (5) counts of indecency-fondling in Tarrant County, 
	Texas. Due to this conviction, England is required to register as a sex offender.  Petitioner 
	relocated to the State of Arkansas and was assigned an assessment level 3.
Case History:	England filed a petition with the circuit court seeking to reduce his assessment to a 
	level 1 or 2. Court issued final order reducing notification level to Level 1.  SOAC 
	considering appeal.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	6	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Joseph Williams	Attorney	Sara F. Merritt
Defendant:	Dept. of Correction, et al	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV 2006-	Filed:	03/03/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	Petitioner Williams seeks judicial review of his assessment level 3, and alleges that the Sex and 
	Child Offender Registration Act of 1997 does not apply to him. Petitioner Williams was 
	convicted of Sexual Solicitation of a Child and Harassing Communication on 3/7/2005. He 
	solicited sex from 13-year old female and then called her on several occasions telling her he was 
	watching her. Petitioner had history of prior sexual offense charges and a conviction for 
	Indecent Exposure and Sexual Solicitation of a Child in February of 2002. He seeks a reduction 
	of his level 3 assessment in circuit court.
Case History:	Based upon the decision of the AR Supreme Court in Munson v AR Dept of Correction,
	 in which the court held that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC (Sex 
	Offender Assessment Committee) must contain written findings of fact and conclusions
	 of law. State counsel filed a motion to remand.  Court remanded case to SOAC on 
	8/9/07 for final Administrative Order.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	John Doe	Attorney	George D. Oleson
Defendant:	John S. Holt	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV 2006-1325-1	Filed:	06/29/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	Petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-901 (sex offender
	 registration statute) alleging that it violates his federal and state constitutional rights.
Case History:	Based upon the decision of the AR Supreme Court in Munson v AR Dept of Correction,
	 in which the court held that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC (Sex 
	Offender Assessment Committee) must contain written findings of fact and conclusions
	 of law. The parties developed and submitted to the circuit court an agreed order of 
	remand.  Remand Order entered on 7-31-07.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	7	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Robert Nietfeld	Attorney	Brad L. Karren, P.A.
Defendant:	ADC	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV2006-1333-	Filed:	07/11/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	In June 2005, the Indiana Department of Corrections completed a risk assessment on the 
	Petitioner, which shows him to be at "low risk".  On 3/3/ 2006, Petitioner Nietfeld received an 
	assessment level 3 in AR which is higher than his risk assessment as determined by the State of 
	Indiana. Nietfeld seeks a reduction of this level 3 assessment in circuit court.
Case History:	Based upon the decision of the AR Supreme Court in Munson v AR Dept of Correction,
	 in which the court held that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC (Sex 
	Offender Assessment Committee) must contain written findings of fact and conclusions
	 of law, the parties developed and submitted to the circuit court an agreed order of 
	remand.  Remand Order entered on 7-31-07.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Eric Burchette	Attorney	Jeff Rosenzweig
Defendant:	SOSRA	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV2006-4008	Filed:	04/07/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	Petitioner Burchette is appealing his assessment at level 3. He was convicted of Sexual Assault 
	(4th degree) and two counts of Sexual Indecency with a Child on 11/15/2004. Documentation 
	indicated he engaged in sexual contact with 3 minor females ages 12-14, one of whom lived with
	 him.
Case History:	Burchette sought a reduction of this assessment level in circuit court, which ruled 
	against him. He then filed an appeal with the AR Court of Appeals, which remanded 
	the case to SOAC (Sex Offender Assessment Committee) for a final administrative 
	order consistent with the AR Supreme Court's ruling in Munson v AR Dept of 
	Correction (that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC must contain written 
	findings of fact and conclusions of law).
Current Status:	ACTIVE.  Final Adminstrative Order entered by SOAC upholding the Level 3 
	notification level.  Final order lodged with the Circuit Court 9/5/07.  Oral arguments 
	tentatively scheduled 11-8-07.
	8	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007

Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Harvey W. Sontag	Attorney	Pro Se
Defendant:	Wendy Kelley et al.	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV06-5959	Filed:	05/19/2006
Relief Sought:	Review of assessment level 3.
Issue:	Petitioner Sontag seeks circuit court review of his assessment level 3.
Case History:	Based upon the decision of the AR Supreme Court in Munson v AR Dept of Correction,
	 in which the court held that a final administrative order issued by the SOAC (Sex 
	Offender Assessment Committee) must contain written findings of fact and conclusions
	 of law. State counsel has filed a motion to remand.  Remand Order filed 8/9/07.  
	Petitioner filed Notice of Appeal 8-16-07.  Record has not been lodged.  SOAC is in 
	the process of entering final Administrative Order.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
Agency:	Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assess. Comm.	Report #:	<NA>
Plaintiff:	Bart Prentiss	Attorney	Mark F. Cooper
Defendant:	Sex Offender Screen & Risk	Attorney:	Amy L. Ford
Intervenor:	Attorney
Court :	BAXTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT	Docket 	CV2005-287-4	Filed:	10/03/2005
Relief Sought:	Reversal of Sex Offender classification.
Issue:	Petitioner Prentiss was convicted of a sex offense in the State of TX and assessed by SOAC as a 
	level 3. Prentiss alleges that AR received erroneous information from TX authorities that 
	resulted in his being assessed at that level. He also alleges that the State of AR failed to consider 
	an updated report from TX when assessing him.
Case History:	Prentiss sought a reduction of his assessment level in circuit court. The case has been 
	fully briefed and orally argued. State counsel notified the court of the Munson decision; 
	Court remanded case on 8-30-07 for final Administrative Order.
Current Status:	ACTIVE.
	9	/Litigation Summary	07-Sep-2007