Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00303/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

JONATHAN MORRIS PLAINTIFF 

ADC #150394 

V. No. 4:23-CV-303-JM-JTR 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION; FAULKNER COUNTY DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

I. Introduction 

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Jonathan Morris (“Morris”), an inmate in the 

Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se

§ 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated. Doc. 2. He 

has since filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”). 

Doc. 6. Before Morris may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his 

claims.1

 

1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints, 

and to dismiss any 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (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). 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 6
2 

II. Allegations 

In his Complaint and Motion to Amend, Morris alleges that, since he has been 

incarcerated in the ADC, inmates and staff have “said and done things” to provoke 

him “to get mad or fight them.” Doc. 2-1 at 4, 6. He claims that both inmates and 

staff have verbally abused him, played “mental games” with him, and “jumped” him. 

Id. at 6. 

In particular, Morris grieves that he has been put in an isolation cell with an 

inmate who constantly provokes him to get into a fight. Id.; Doc. 6 at 1. When he 

asks to move, he is told that he must “take a disciplinary” to do so. Doc. 6 at 1. The 

few times he has been moved from the cell, he was placed in a “freezing” holding 

cell. Doc. 2-1 at 6. 

Morris has tried to report the alleged verbal, mental, and physical abuse to 

correctional officers, but they only laugh at him, tell him he is “crazy,” and “call 

mental health to talk to [him].” Id. at 4, 6. Due to the abuse, Morris has repeatedly 

refused to return to his barracks. Id. at 6. Consequently, he has received fourteen 

disciplinaries for disobeying orders and his six-month sentence has been extended. 

Id. 

Morris names the Arkansas Department of Correction and Faulkner County 

as the only two Defendants. For relief, he seeks monetary damages, declaratory 

judgment, and to recover his “time wasted sitting in ADC.” Doc. 2-1 at 5; Doc. 6 at 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 6
3 

1. He also requests that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to have him removed 

from his cell. Id. 

III. Discussion 

Before Morris can proceed with his claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires the 

Court to screen his Complaint, which “must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) (allegations must be 

“simple, concise, and direct”). “[L]abels and conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation 

of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertions devoid of further factual 

enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Finally, a prisoner’s § 1983 Complaint must allege facts sufficient to show how each 

defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional wrongdoing. Id. at 

676. 

Liberally construing Morris’s Complaint, he seeks to bring a failure to protect 

claim against the ADC for repeatedly placing him in a cell with an inmate that has 

provoked him to get into physical fights. He also states that ADC officials have 

subjected him to excessive force and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 

There are several deficiencies in Morris’s Complaint that must be resolved if this 

case is to proceed. 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 6
4 

First, Morris’s Complaint is vague and overbroad. He does not provide any 

specific factual allegations regarding: (1) any fights between him and his cellmate; 

(2) being “jumped” by ADC officials; and (3) his time in a “freezing” cell. 

Second, Morris’s allegations of verbal abuse by prison officials, 

unaccompanied by injury, is insufficient to state a constitutional claim. Irving v. 

Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Third, in order to bring a claim against the ADC and Faulkner County, he 

must allege facts showing that any underlying constitutional violation was the result 

of an ADC policy, custom, or failure to train. See Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, 

Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1214 (8th Cir. 2013). He has failed to do so. Additionally, any 

monetary claim against the ADC is barred by sovereign immunity. Nix v. Norman, 

879 F.2d 429, 432 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Fourth, to the extent that Morris seeks to be released from ADC custody, he 

may not do so in this § 1983 action. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) 

(prisoners seeking speedier release may only do so “through a habeas corpus action, 

not through § 1983”). 

Finally, in order to seek a preliminary injunction Morris must come forward 

with sufficient facts and evidence for the Court to consider: (1) the threat of 

irreparable harm to him; (2) the balance between the harm to him and the harm to 

the Defendants should the injunction issue; (3) the likelihood of success on the 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 6
5 

merits; and (4) the public interest. Roudachevski v. All-American Care Centers, Inc.,

648 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, 

Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981)). Morris has made no argument regarding the 

Dataphase factors. 

In light of the of the noted deficiencies in Morris’s Complaint, the Court will 

give him 30 days, from the date of this Order, to file an Amended Complaint. Morris 

is placed on notice that, if he files the requested Amended Complaint, that pleading 

will supersede his previous Complaint. See In re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 

1067 (8th Cir. 2000). Thus, his Amended Complaint should contain all Defendants 

he seeks to name in this matter, the claim or claims he seeks to pursue in this action, 

and the factual predicate for that claim. The Amended Complaint should also 

provide specific factual allegations detailing: (1) how his constitutional rights were 

violated through the ADC or Faulkner County’s policies, practices, or failure to train 

or supervise its employees; and (2) if Morris seeks to pursue personal capacity 

claims against any Defendant, how each Defendant personally participated in 

violating his constitutional rights. 

 If Morris elects not to file an Amended Complaint providing the additional 

information requested in this Order, the Court will proceed to screen his Complaint. 

Morris is placed on notice that, if he elects to stand on the allegations in his 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 6
6 

Complaint, the Court is likely to conclude that this § 1983 action should be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failing to state a claim for relief. 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Morris’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 5) is DENIED as 

premature. 

2. Morris’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 6) is GRANTED to the extent that he 

may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order. 

3. Morris’s Motion for Status (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. The Clerk is 

directed to send Morris a copy of the docket sheet. 

4. The Clerk is further directed to send Morris a new § 1983 complaint 

form labeled “Amended and Substituted Complaint.” 

5. Morris will be allowed to file, within thirty (30) days of the date of 

this Order, an Amended Complaint that complies with the directions in this Order. 

If he does not timely and properly do so, the Court will screen his Complaint, which 

will likely result in a recommendation that his claims be dismissed. 

DATED this 16th day of October, 2023. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00303-JM Document 8 Filed 10/16/23 Page 6 of 6