Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-12-2024

Case Style:

Gerald Hinshaw v. Columbia County, Arkansas, et al.

Case Number: 1:23-CR-1004

Judge: Susan O. Hickey

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Union County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best El Dorado, Arkansas Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Jamie Huffman Jones


Texarkana, Texas personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories.

A Deputy from the Columbia County Sheriff's Department arrested Brian Hinshaw (“Hinshaw”) for outstanding warrants on October 10, 2021. Hinshaw was subsequently booked into and detained at the Columbia County, Arkansas Detection Center (“CCDC”). Hinshaw's health began to deteriorate significantly during his confinement. CCDC personnel found Hinshaw dead in his holding cell on October 14, 2021.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 18, 2023. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Arkansas tort statutes related to wrongful death, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff names Columbia County, Arkansas, and numerous personnel of the Columbia County Sheriff's Department and the CCDC as Defendants. Plaintiff brings his § 1983 claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants exhibited tortious and unconstitutional indifference to Hinshaw's medical issues during his confinement in the CCDC, which ultimately resulted in Hinshaw's death on October 14, 2021.

Separate Defendant Elkins subsequently filed the instant pro se motion to dismiss. ECF No. 25. Defendant Elkins argues that he cannot be liable for Plaintiff's claims because he did not begin his work as a medical officer at the CCDC until weeks after Hinshaw's death. Plaintiff has not responded to the instant motion, and the time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.2(b). While Elkins never explicitly states that his motion is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), liberally interpreting his motion permits the Court to view it as such. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 95 (2007) (noting that pro se filings must be construed liberally).

Outcome: ORDER granting 65 Motion to Dismiss. Case dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 12, 2024.(mll) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case