Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 9 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR
Moody Ray

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 9

Address:

Address: ---+-=;.c:::;;:~_---:...W..:..•~~~-4l&...:...=~---==-:~~_,__...L.,;;.~C'~

II. Are you sum• g the defend I

f?_,__,a<.. D£FEN/)AfVTs/ o;e~«->
\. 011/ Bltck or Pt1Cr£ /

0

official capacity o . y

~ personal capacity •nly both official and rsonal capacity

III. Previous lawsuits

A. Have you begun fuer lawsuits i11 state or ·federal court dealing with the same facts
involved in this a tion?

Yes

No

B. If your answer to is yes, describe the lawsuit ,in the space below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, escribe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, using the same outline.)

0

Parties to e previous lawsuit:

Plaintiffs: .+-------------~-----------------------------

Defendan

-5-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 9
NA(V1£: LT.. SANG-
faSI~Ior.J: Sh l;~tff
PltK2- of u-nplc;W~t:~+: PtA llf:iKi Cov1n+; Jlr; [
220 I w·.. RooQ.v£lt-
I=P/ !IR 72201/-
NttME: L T . Rou+h
Po5ITION. Sh~vzi{f
Plflc~ of Employm-r_ht< PLAitlski Covn+y JAil
3~01 W. T<o(ls~vc.Lt l- 1<'1 AR 727 Ol/-
- - - - - - ~------------ - ------ -

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 9

I

0

Court (if fi de rat court, name the district; if state court, name the county):

!

0

Docket N jinber: --------------~-----

0

Name of j. Idge to whom case was assigned: - - - - - - - - - - -

0

Dispositio :: (for example: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed?

Is it still p 'nding?) - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0

Approxim :te date of filing lawsuit: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1

0

Approxim ,1te date of disposition:

!

---------------

rv. Place of present confine _'P:._vt:;. ;. ; .;lfi. . !. .: :S. ~. /<~r._·-=~~+--~--'-'--=------! 3:20 I llf, ioos-'i. v"f;l f·

f

v. At the time of the allege /:incident(s). were you:
(check appropriate blank I.
I

/ i n jail and still a :iting trial on pending criminal charges

_ _ serving a sentenc as a result of a judgment of conviction

_ _ in jail for other r sons (e.g .• alleged probation violation, etc.)
explain: ----+-----~------------------

I
I
VI. The Prison Litigation Re prm Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, requires complete exhaustion

.of administrative remedi ~ of all claims asserted, prior to the filing of a lawsuit. There is a

prisoner grievance proce ,ure in the Arkansas Department of Correction, and in several county

jails. Failure to complet ' the exhaustion process provided as to each of the claims asserted in

this-complaint may iesul lfn tlie dismissal without prejudice of all the claims raised in this

complaint.

1

!

A. Did you file a gri v1 ance or grievances presenting the facts set forth in this complaint?

Yes.L_ No

B. Did you complet y exhaust the grievance(s) by appeating to all levels within the I grievance proced re?

-6-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 5 of 9
Yes/ No
Ifnot,why? __~--------------------~-------------------
VII. Statement of claim State here (as briefly as os~ible) the facts of your case.. Describe how each defendant is involved. Include also e names of other persons involved, dates, and places. Do not give any legal arguments or c'te any cases or statutes. If yo:u intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set f, rth each claim in a separate paragraph. (Use as much space as you need. Attach extra sheet ·if necessary.)
.
[11
i
IS
Al.sv,. JS only o E S£ciAVZriy CAvnEM il'l -#!£ rA.V+. v.Jhich is
OYlly Aba.tE fh£ dE?tA+y s+ttfioVl. :ZV1V)1M.fs sAfry isM Viis!~
du~ _+~___bllkld ~- .I~ -~~=0~-:r-~t_(:~..n;~ -!his C~IA.~L
,!_. l.AJ'l\AnM I F> ~slotme-,zf ..{. 1/iolllfio n. o{ d"'& f'l'l.OCEss.

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 6 of 9

ln ~n~[ r~~E Wv: ltY<E

Popv.LM,·O$? brAt -fru'llted l'ls- if llr<tE .

ifu: s~-~-!3:. ~-~'* il't~~ 41.

--------.....~~------
.

E·-n-v·-.-J-t--l:-o--~---__!_I_ ICk-;:rs~

.,
-·

\j[k.. in~~ ~~ to_ __snl~ h~lf I!~ -/l-,i~ m11~ -~;;

. -- ~~:t_~Rf~-~- ~~~~~~cl ...,, "' ··--· _.,

' ' ' '

in thE JutfE. -ri!S__i_f;n,

'

'

. '

'

'

'

~p';fO;V-ok:-~:~_~
Atso,

[~n_;f§id;Joz;>t-s~E-·..~ftB£kIQC.>(:;-IfV~ii1i:s>~E-EE_c_l'~__~-!!!IW'!s!O~. I:<'lnnk-_~-~tV;IJn~_[VWXfO-dI'"<~-Y. ·~l"o·'S-lOV'I,.~!. d~

~ CA~-t vto.i_$i___~~-fv_IA_~~-!Ydh ___,__ -· · - ···· P - ·)"

.IAVIl~ss
----·--

- -W- · -E· - ··-h---~--t-t-·f- -___Q_:'l.

.fh~ ___d_gq~

~-

'

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 7 of 9 VIII. Relief
I declare under penalty of perju (18 U.S. C. § 1621) that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this _ _ ay of _ _~----· 2 0 _.
.- . ,.,,,_,__...,,_-,
-·--,_.. _.. ·..,,,.,,~·--r- ~ :¥·~ ....._._.............

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 8 of 9

THE FOLLOW..LNCT INMitTE~ ARE PL/fiN·TJ..-Ff.~{·
I.JM0lca,_k;s. r-lunt- ~71..17 & HOusED AT THE PULASki CoiANTY JA:LL (

2! V-ood a.\ ~adn\-ph

3.) Df&'ELCk ALLt~

L+.) Cu:Jn c Coot'J~r !'k

¢P

•

i .

-

.

:~-~ ~;,~c ~- ~C?f\f:)l' .

.

. '
"
·.

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 9 of 9
COUNT PULASKI

Arla!nsas OefJJGCJr.l.i•Cla.:~~,JGtN

Pulaski County S.h~riff l:;>.oc Holladay;says the memorial outside the ~J;i~,rif~t·s~ office in little Rock I§

one of his best achiev~rnents in 12lVeat'$ as sheriff.

,. > , :·•

,~

'.·

,

"",

',

.Jil '

.,. ,

I

ArkansaS Deimi~l.GazfiltetJOHl
p,,,,....., r.n,l!t•! ~h~t•iff n"r 1-lnri~ri;:;'J Cihn•',JW in ··ti'i~ ,.;~,..~ fh hffi~' Rnr.t.- l"t<>t w~pl(: ~;;,ill ~-;,r 0

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 22 Filed 03/07/19 Page 1 of 5

AMENDED COMPLAINT

f::' J .

Ftl!.'!JL.s of,~'?0

FORM TO BE USED BY PRISONERS IN FILING A COMPL~IN'~RN d?~pc.:;~~c>".~;~ ;p.,..

UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

' 1 -':,,>4iv-s

MAR

As

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR:ft1Mt:s IN. . OI ZDJ9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN§xs_ .

_______ DIVISION

I. Parties

CASE NO. 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR

ries Jury Trial:

o No

(Check One)

In item A below, place your full name in the first blank and place your present address in the second

blank. Do the same for additional plaintiffs, if any.

A. Name of plaintiff: ])fRRICk LA/Yl 0t(-r ALLE;t/

ADC# - - - - - -

rJ, Address: //2

Brr-dt

Name of plaintiff: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADC# _ _ _ _ __ Address:
-------------------~--
Name of plaintiff: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADC# _ _ _ _ __

Address:----------------------

In item B below, place the full name of the defendant in the first blank, his official position in the

second blank, his place of employment in the third blank, and his address in the fourth blank.

tbc B. Name of defendant:

J-±o/ ~

tt' ~ Position:

R1.lft5kl Place of employment: Cou....vt-1;\j I0 Address: ~2 vf, Ro os-Evrl+ I1<d

/l1Bj ]?Je18JS Name of defendant:

(!fl...

Position: ~.ft2

-4-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 22 Filed 03/07/19 Page 2 of 5

fuLtsi::r CwVL-ty f!lil
Place of employment: _3_~_Q_\_W.........._P::......_.,_[\o-'-----'Os£V:::........=:.._.__£l_.f-"-----

l U\r Atz / L 2 i J t r Address: --~~~-,r+,~~----------~~-----------------

58+· Name of defendant:

J3'MlAJL~

Position: .5h~ i.f>ICU:.P~-ty JA(I

Place of employment: 0 ~ \)J ~ ~ Os&fl-f

Address: __:(~JZ~,.+/1.u.R.::::....__7~Z~2~o____!.lf_- _ _ _ __

'I?t:\M-tf Name of defendant: RyAVl (148VtefJL

£[ fu/lf f;hOO Position:

s-Pf QzW'l'ty yl!(/

Place of employment: )~?J) ( tjt.l. RooSfVC}--t

Address: _ ____IC_LJ\-+-ft-l-A-+LK---=----7Z2Q---'----=3i<...·!f-...._ !,_. _ _ _ __

II. Are you suing the defendants in:

-

official capacity only personal capacity only both official and personal capacity

Ill. Previous lawsuits

A. Have you begun other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facts
involved in this action?
N o / Yes

B. If your answer to A is yes, describe the lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more
than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, using the same outline.)

D Parties to the previous lawsuit:

Plaintiffs: -----------------------------------------

Defendants: ---------------------------------------

-5-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 22 Filed 03/07/19 Page 3 of 5

D Court (if federal court, name the district; if state court, name the county):

D Docket Number: ---------------------------------------D Name of judge to whom case was assigned: --------------------
D Disposition: (for example: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still p e n d i n g ? ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D Approximate date of filing lawsuit: --------------------------
D Approximate date of disposition: ---------------------------
_.f. . . IV. Place of present confinement: tA"'-'./.,....A~S~k:....:.t__C;;._:o~vtvt=-=-±y----r---l'"="JA~Id~'~~--

V. At the time of the alleged incident(s), were you: (che~ppropriate blank)
Jf__ in jail and still awaiting trial on pending criminal charges
_ _ serving a sentence as a result of a judgment of conviction
_ _ in jail for other reasons (e.g., alleged probation violation, etc.) explain: ---------------------------------------------------

VI. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, requires complete exhaustion of administrative remedies of all claims asserted, prior to the filing of a lawsuit. There is a prisoner grievance procedure in the Arkansas Department of Correction, and in several county jails. Failure to complete the exhaustion proces.s provided as to each of the claims asserted in this complaint may result in the dismissal without prejudice of all the claims raised in this complaint.

A. Did you_}lle a grievance or grievances presenting the facts set forth in this complaint? Yes_V_ No

B.

Y S" Did you completely exhaust the grievance(s) by appealing to all levels within the

grievance procedure?

~

-6-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 22 Filed 03/07/19 Page 4 of 5
Yes~
If not, w h y ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VII. Statement of claim State here (as briefly as possible) the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved. Include also the names of other persons involved, dates, and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. (Use as much space as you need. Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
sftt:[{_, j A lfnK

I
d~pu-ty fq_ ~MfttW-fUJt w11kb Af kart /f;O W•·

1111s fo¥£Ed th£ Lhmt1f'&S +a only be Abl£ ~

Come- au+ 1-harH-.. pcJf2--dAy. thts /:vu.tfl:l fh--an. ~

Mk hltV£ ltCCW +o .fit£ pMJ'l£7, k Joe A-hL£ -bt

-1-6

~it< hwy~. bonds-Wl/IVL/ & fiiVVti~v. /l!Uny /imt:> wE

cav..Lbr"" -f GVru

ge-t ol r/;laGtt;f,i!... o.}(

O().rt f-u!! {X)f(..{ir;l1

~ad

.t ~$ cfi-Qs£ It sit-f<Ety iS'stA£

r~~

I
stttf('

i1/lmrtt-!S_

~ui t~ ij/lt111>( ..f:im&> 'MmtetD Md. I'UJ clwlet l?u.t- -fu pLEAd

-7-

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 22 Filed 03/07/19 Page 5 of 5 VIII. Relief
State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.
I declare under penalty of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 2:? day of f£hK~AJ!(Y ,2oll_. I Signature(s) of plaintiff(s)
-8-

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 20 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLEN

PLAINTIFF

V.

No. 4:18CV00541-JM-JTR

DOC HOLLADAY, Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Derrick Allen (“Allen”) filed this § 1983 action when he was a pretrial

detainee in the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“PCDF”).1 Doc. 2. On November

1, 2018, the case was dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. Docs. 11

& 12. Allen has filed a Notice of Change of Address, a Motion to Reopen and a free-

world Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Docs. 16, 17 & 18.

I. Motions to Reopen and Proceed In Forma Pauperis For good cause shown, Allen’s Motion to Reopen (Doc. 18) is granted, and the Clerk will be directed to reopen the case. Based on the financial information provided, his free-world Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 17) is also granted.

1Allen and twenty-two other PCDF detainees initiated this action as a single civil rights complaint. In accordance with the Court’s practice, the action was severed into separate lawsuits. Doc. 7. Allen has since been released from incarceration. See Doc. 16.

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 20 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 5
II. Screening Before Allen may proceed, the Court must screen his Complaint.2 Allen alleges, while he was housed in the PCDF’s R Unit, his security was at risk because the “link door” separating the R and S Units was open “for hours at a time.” According to Allen, when the link door was open, one deputy watched both units, which together housed more than 150 inmates. Allen alleges that PCDF policy and “federal law” mandate no more than 80 inmates per officer. He alleges that his security was further at risk because R unit had only one security camera (which left multiple “blind spots”) and the speakers in the cells did not work. Doc. 2 at 5-6. Allen also alleges that, because of the staff shortage, the inmates in R Unit were on lockdown which: (1) prevented them from contacting their lawyers, bondsmen, and family; (2) forced them “to give up cell clean-up, in order to come out of their cells”;3 and (3) unfairly treated general population inmates as if they were “Ad Seg.” Finally, Allen alleges that, if inmates sought help about these matters, they were “threatened, maced and placed in the hole.” Id.
2The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
3Allen does not explain what this means.
2

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 20 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 5
Allen alleges that the above-described conditions in R Unit violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks $1.5 million in damages. Id. at 5 & 7.
Finally, Allen has filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to: (1) add U.S. President Donald Trump and Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson as Defendants; and (2) add another inmate, Ricky Hampton, as a plaintiff. Doc. 4.
Before the Court can perform its mandatory screening function as required by § 1915A, Allen must file an Amended Complaint that corrects or clarifies a number of deficiencies in his current pleadings.
First, “[a] prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.3d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Thus, Allen cannot bring claims on behalf of Hampton or any other R Unit inmates. Instead, Allen can proceed only on the alleged constitutional violations he personally experienced. Importantly, in connection with each of those constitutional violations, he must explain how he was personally harmed or injured. Id.
Second, Allen’s Complaint names, as Defendants, Sheriff Doc Holladay, Grievance Officer Sgt. Brawley, Major Briggs, Sgt. Musaddiq, Lt. Bang and Lt. Routh. However, the Complaint itself contains no factual or legal allegations against any of them. Nor does Allen’s Motion to Amend explain: (1) his legal and factual basis for adding the President and Governor as Defendants; and (2) how both of them
3

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 20 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 5
were personally responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (explaining that, to state a viable § 1983 claim, a prisoner “must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”).
Therefore, Allen must file an Amended Complaint correcting and clarifying his pleadings by: (1) only asserting constitutional violations that he personally experienced; (2) explaining how he was personally harmed by the alleged constitutional violations when he was in the PCDF and how long he endured those violations; (3) explaining how each Defendant was personally involved in violating his constitutional rights; and (4) explaining why he is suing each the Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
III. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Allen’s Motion to Reopen and Motion for Leave Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 17 & 18) are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case. 2. Allen’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 4) is DENIED. 3. The Clerk is directed to mail Allen a § 1983 complaint form that is labeled “Amended Complaint.” 4. Allen must file, within thirty days of the date of this Order, an Amended Complaint containing the information specified in this Order. If he does
4

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM-JTR Document 20 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 5
not timely and properly do so, this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
DATED this 13th day of February, 2019. ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5

 
 CLOSED,CASREF,JURY,RD,REOPEN
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Central Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:18−cv−00541−JM

Allen v. Holladay et al Assigned to: Judge James M. Moody Jr. Case in other court: USCA8, 20−01082 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff Derrick Allen

Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Date Terminated: 07/08/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Derrick Allen PULASKI COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY 3201 West Roosevelt Road Little Rock, AR 72204 PRO SE

V. Defendant Doc Holladay Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Brawley Grievance Officer, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Briggs Major, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Musaddiq Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Bang Lieutenant, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Routh Lieutenant, Pulaski County Jail
Defendant Ryan Crancer Deputy, Pulaski County Jail

Date Filed 08/20/2018
08/20/2018

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Derrick Allen. (kdr) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Derrick Allen.(kdr) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 09/05/2018 09/06/2018 09/10/2018 09/12/2018
09/17/2018 09/25/2018
10/02/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/13/2018 11/16/2018 11/20/2018 12/03/2018 12/03/2018 01/07/2019
02/13/2019
03/07/2019 03/07/2019

3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Derrick Allen. (kdr) [STRICKEN PER 7 ORDER] (jak) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
4 MOTION to Amend 2 Complaint by Derrick Allen. (cel) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
5 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 2 Complaint, 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (fjg) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
6 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 4 Motion to Amend. (fjg) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
7 INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONERS granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; striking the 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction from the record, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/12/18. (tjb) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
8 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 7 Initial Order for Pro Se Prisoners. (cmn) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
9 ORDER directing the Clerk to mail plaintiff a free−world Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; directing plaintiff to file (1) a notice of his current mailing address and (2) if he has been released a free−world Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by 10/25/18 8 . Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/25/18. (tjb) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
10 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 9 Order, IFP free−world application. (fjg) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
11 ORDER dismissing this case without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 11/1/2018. (ljb) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
12 JUDGMENT: Consistent with 11 Order entered separately today, this case is dismissed without prejudice. All relief sought is denied, and the case is closed. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 11/1/2018. (ljb) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
13 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (ljb) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
14 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 13 Appellate Filing Fee Notice. (fjg) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
15 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Derrick Allen re 11 Order, 12 Judgment. (fjg) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
16 NOTICE of Change of Address by Derrick Allen. (thd) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
17 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Derrick Allen (jap) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
18 MOTION to Reopen Case by Derrick Allen. (ljb) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
19 ORDER referring this case to United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray for consideration and determination of all pre−trial matters and for recommended disposition for the resolution of any dispositive matters. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 1/7/2019. (ljb) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
20 ORDER granting 18 Allen's Motion to Reopen and 17 Motion for Leave Proceed In Forma Pauperis; directing the Clerk to reopen this case; denying 4 Allen's Motion to Amend; directing the Clerk to mail Allen a 1983 complaint form that is labeled "Amended Complaint"; and directing Allen to file, within 30 days of the date of this Order, an Amended Complaint containing the information specified in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 2/13/2019. (cmn) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
21 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Derrick Allen. (kdr) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by Derrick Allen.(kdr) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

06/13/2019
07/08/2019
07/08/2019 07/08/2019 07/22/2019 07/25/2019
01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/10/2020 01/10/2020 01/10/2020 01/13/2020 01/13/2020
01/13/2020
02/03/2020
03/11/2020 03/18/2020

23 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that 2 22 Allen's Complaint and Amended Complaint be dismissed, without prejudice; the dismissal of the case be counted as a "strike"; and the Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. Objections due within 14 days of the date of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 6/13/2019. (kdr) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
24 ORDER approving and adopting in its entirety 23 Recommendation as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing without prejudice 2 Complaint and 22 Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Dismissal is a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 7/8/2019. (ljb) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
25 JUDGMENT: Consistent with 24 Order entered separately today, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 7/8/2019. (ljb) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
26 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (ljb) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
27 MOTION to Reopen Case and Objection to 24 Order of Dismissal by Derrick Allen. (kdr) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
28 (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER denying 27 Motion to Reopen Case. Plaintiff has not put forth any grounds justifying relief from the judgment and order of dismissal, and his motion is denied. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 7/25/19. (dpb) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
29 NOTICE OF APPEAL and NOTICE of Change of Address by Derrick Allen. (jak) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
30 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. Response due by 2/3/2020.(ajt) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
31 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Derrick Allen. (ajt) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
32 ORDER denying 31 Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 01/10/2020. (ajt) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
33 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL and NOA SUPPLEMENT as to 29 Notice of Appeal re 24 Order and 25 Judgment. (ajt) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
34 USCA Docketing Letter as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen. USCA Case Number 20−1082. (ajt) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
35 ORDER of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen: The $505 appellate filing and docketing fee has not been paid and is due. Appellant is directed to pay the fee in the district court or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court within 28 days of this order. (ajt) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
36 ORDER of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen: The Clerk of the district court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER. (ajt) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
37 USCA JUDGMENT as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen: The court orders that this untimely appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The full $505 appellate and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. The court remands the collection of those fees to the district court. (ajt) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
38 ORDER of USCA as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen: The petition for rehearing by the panel is denied. The motion for a copy of the original file is also denied. (ajt) (Entered: 03/11/2020)
39 MANDATE of USCA in accordance with the judgment of 02/03/2020 as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Derrick Allen. (ajt) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLEN

PLAINTIFF

V.

No. 4:18CV00541-JM-JTR

DOC HOLLADAY, Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail, et al.

DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent

to United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections

to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

Recommendation. If you do not file objections, Judge Moody can adopt this

Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record.

By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

I. Introduction On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff Derrick Allen (“Allen”) initiated this pro se § 1983 action while he was a pretrial detainee in the Pulaski County Detention Facility

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 2 of 9
(“PCDF”).1 Doc. 2. He was then released from incarceration. Doc. 16. On November
1, 2018, his case was dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. Docs. 11
& 12.
On December 3, 2018, Allen filed a Motion to Reopen, stating that he wished
to pursue his case even though he was no longer incarcerated. Doc. 18. The Court
granted that Motion and ordered him to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. 20. On
March 7, 2019, he filed his Amended Complaint. Doc. 22. Before Allen may proceed
with this case, the Court must screen his allegations.2
II. Discussion
In his Complaint and Amended Complaint,3 Allen alleges that, while he was
housed in the PCDF’s R Unit for an unspecified period of time, his security was at
1Initially, Allen sought to join 22 other PCDF detainees as Plaintiffs. In accordance with the Court’s practice, the action was severed into separate lawsuits. Doc. 7.
2The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
3The Court has construed Allen’s pro se Complaint and Amended Complaint, together, as constituting his claims. See Kiir v. N.D. Pub. Health, 651 Fed. Appx. 567, 568 (8th Cir. 2016) (amendment “intended to supplement, rather than to supplant, the original complaint,” should be read together with original complaint); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed).
2

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 3 of 9
risk because the “link door” separating the R and S Units was open “for hours at a time.” According to Allen, when the link door was open, one deputy watched both units, which together housed more than 150 inmates. Allen alleges that PCDF policy and “federal law” mandate no more than 80 inmates per officer. He alleges that his security was further at risk because R unit had only one security camera (which left multiple “blind spots”) and the speakers in the cells did not work. Doc. 2 at 5-6.
As a result of what Allen claims was a “shortage of staff,” the inmates in R Unit were placed on lockdown. This meant inmates in R Unit were only allowed to come out of their cells one hour per day, which: limited their access to the phone; forced them “to give up cell clean-up”; unfairly treated general population inmates as if they were “Ad Seg.”; prevented them on some occasions from showering or “get[ting] [their] full portion of food”; and forced them to plead guilty to their criminal charges in order to get out of the PCDF. Id.; Doc. 22 at 4. Allen alleges that, if inmates sought help about these matters, they were “threatened, maced and placed in the hole.” Doc. 2 at 5-6.
Allen alleges that the above-described conditions in R Unit violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks $1.5 million in damages. Id. at 5 & 7.
For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Allen has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 4 of 9
A. No Personal Involvement Allen’s initial Complaint contained no factual or legal allegations against any of the named Defendants (Sheriff Doc Holladay, Grievance Officer Sgt. Brawley, Major Briggs, Sgt. Musaddiq, Lt. Bang and Lt. Routh). Doc. 2 at 1-2. In ordering Allen to file an Amended Complaint, the Court pointed out this deficiency and expressly ordered him to file an Amended Complaint “explaining how each Defendant was personally involved in violating his constitutional rights.” Doc. 20 at 3-4. Despite this clear instruction, his Amended Complaint adds a Defendant (Deputy Ryan Crancer) but still contains only conclusory allegations that fail to identify any specific individuals, explain how each of them were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations, or provide any specific facts demonstrating how these alleged constitutional violations resulted in him sustaining any physical injuries. Doc. 22 at 1-2 & 4. Merely naming an individual or entity as a Defendant is insufficient to state a claim against that individual or entity. See Krych v. Hvass, 83 Fed. Appx. 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that pro se plaintiff failed to state a claim against individuals that he “merely listed” in the complaint as defendants). Instead, to state a viable § 1983 claim, a prisoner “must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution,” and the complaint must contain sufficient “factual content that allows the court to draw the
4

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 5 of 9
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 & 678; see Keeper v. King., 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that the “general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison in insufficient to establish the personal involvement required to support [§ 1983] liability”). Liability under § 1983 “requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). Allen has not alleged sufficient personal involvement on the part of any of the named Defendants.
B. No Personal Harm In his Complaint, Allen vaguely alleged that “security is at risk” and that the activities and privileges of PCDC inmates, in general, were limited by the staff shortage and lockdown. In ordering Allen to file an Amended Complaint, the Court expressly advised him that he: (1) could not proceed on behalf of other inmates; (2) could “proceed only on the alleged constitutional violations he personally experienced”; and (3) was required to “explain how he was personally harmed or injured” by those violations and how long he endured them. Doc. 20 at 3-4. Despite these clear instructions, Allen’s Amended Complaint continues to assert claims on behalf of “the inmates” at PCDF. Doc. 22 at 4. “A prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.3d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); see Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255 (1953) (“Ordinarily, one
5

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 6 of 9
may not claim standing … to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (parties must “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel”). Those claims cannot proceed, and the Court will consider Allen’s allegations only as they relate to him personally.
Like his Complaint, Allen’s Amended Complaint gives no dates or other details, nor does it state how long he was subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. His Amended Complaint also fails to allege any physical injuries he sustained as a result of the alleged constitutional violations or explain how he was otherwise personally harmed. See Doc. 22 at 4. Allen’s vague and conclusory allegations fall far short of stating a constitutional claim.
Although the “Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” the “treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the [cruel and unusual punishment clause of the] Eighth Amendment.”4 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); see Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981) (Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions that involve the “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain”). To state a
4Technically, Allen=s claims are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, instead of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause, because he was a pretrial detainee (and not a convicted prisoner) while he was at the PCDF. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). However, the Eighth Circuit applies the same standard to conditions of confinement claims based on either the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 2005).
6

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 7 of 9
viable Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner or a detainee must allege facts demonstrating that: (1) objectively, he suffered a deprivation that was “sufficiently serious” enough to deny him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” or to pose “a substantial risk of serious harm” to his health or safety; and (2) subjectively, the defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to the risk of harm posed by the deprivation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 & 837.
The Eighth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must assert an injury that is greater than de minimis to satisfy the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim. Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008); see Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding that a prisoner failed to state a viable claim because he was not actually harmed by the allegedly inadequate security at a prison); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding no constitutional violation where a prisoner failed to demonstrate that he was actually harmed as a result of being exposed to raw sewage); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (providing that: “No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury”). The length of time that a prisoner is subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions is a “critical factor” in the analysis. Smith, 87 F.3d at 269; see also Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 1994).
7

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 8 of 9
Allen has not alleged any facts suggesting he was ever attacked or injured in any way due to the alleged “security risk.” Nor has he alleged facts showing that he was denied life’s necessities such as food, shelter or water, or that he suffered the unnecessary or wanton infliction of pain. At most, he sustained de minimis injuries which cannot support a viable Eighth Amendment claim.5
Allen alleges that “inmates” had restricted telephone access during the lockdown, limiting “them” in calling their lawyers, bondsmen and family. Doc. 2 at 5; Doc. 22 at 4. Again, Allen does not allege how restricting his access to a telephone to one hour a day personally affected him to the extent that it rose to the level of a constitutional violation. Limiting Allen to accessing a telephone during the one hour a day he allegedly was not on lockdown does not violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., Holloway v. Magness, 666 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir. 2012); Whitfield v. Dicker, 41 Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (8th Cir. 2002). Finally, Allen has not alleged any facts demonstrating that he was actually harmed or injured by the restricted telephone use, which is an essential element for pleading a viable constitutional claim for denial of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996); Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2006) (to sustain a “claim based on denial
5To the extent that Allen is attempting to assert a claim based on alleged non-compliance with PCDF “policy,” his claim also fails. It is well settled that a violation of an internal prison policy or regulation alone does not give rise to § 1983 liability. Moore v. Rowley, 126 Fed. Appx. 759, 760 (8th Cir. 2005); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997).
8

Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 Page 9 of 9
of access to legal materials, counsel, or the courts, [a prisoner] must prove that he suffered an actual injury or prejudice as a result of the alleged denial of access”); Whitfield, 41 Fed. Appx. at 7. Accordingly, Allen’s vague and conclusory claim that he was only allowed access to the telephone for one hour a day, during the time R Unit was on lockdown, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
III. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Allen’s Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 2 & 22) be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. The dismissal of this case be counted as a “STRIKE,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. DATED this 13th day of June, 2019.
____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00541-JM Document 24 Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLEN

V.

No. 4:18CV00541-JM-JTR

DOC HOLLADAY, Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail, et al.

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

ORDER The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint and Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Dismissal is a “STRIKE,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3. It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 8th day of July, 2019.
____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE