Lawyer in chief's suit files to drop some defendants

Humphrey’s counsel aims to add names back

Little Rock Police Chief Keith Humphrey answer questions during a press conference Wednesday June 3, 2020 in downtown Little Rock. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Staton Breidenthal)
Little Rock Police Chief Keith Humphrey answer questions during a press conference Wednesday June 3, 2020 in downtown Little Rock. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Staton Breidenthal)

LITTLE ROCK -- An attorney representing Police Chief Keith Humphrey in a wide-ranging civil rights lawsuit filed in federal court this fall moved to dismiss the chief's claims against several defendants in the case on Thursday after failing to meet a judge's deadline to serve them.

However, attorney Michael Laux said he intended to add the individuals to the lawsuit again in the near future.

In the complaint, which was filed Sept. 30 and later amended, Humphrey claimed he was the victim of a conspiracy meant to oust him from the top police job in Little Rock.

Defendants in the civil suit included leaders of the Little Rock Fraternal Order of Police lodge; two assistant police chiefs who sued Humphrey; then-officer Charles Starks, whom Humphrey terminated in 2019; and a local blogger.

On Thursday, Laux filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice the complaint pertaining to six individuals, plus the body-camera company WatchGuard Video. The individuals are Shella Atlas Evans, a city human resources official; Motorola employee Matt Murski; local blogger Russ Racop; and Little Rock police personnel Reginald Parks, Kevin Simpson and Kevin Sexson.

Last week, U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. denied a motion from Laux requesting additional time to serve defendants with the complaint and summons. In his order, Moody gave Laux until Jan. 8, saying the plaintiff had not shown good cause for the failure to serve them.

In a motion for an extension of time to serve the defendants filed on Dec. 30, Laux conceded he missed the deadline to properly serve them by Dec. 29, therefore missing the 90-day window after the filing of the original complaint, and acknowledged he did not move in a timely manner for an extension of time in which to serve them.

Upcoming Events