Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06135/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06135-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JAVON TONEY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06135-SOH-MEF

JOSHUA LINGO

(Jail Administrator, Hot Spring County Jail) 

and INMATE ARMANI BARNETT DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, 

referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to provide a valid service address for Defendant 

Lingo and Defendant Barnett’s Motion to Dismiss Party. (ECF No. 26). 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on December 11, 2023. 

(ECF No. 1). It was transferred to this District on December 13, 2023. (ECF No. 3). On December 

18, 2023, the Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to submit a completed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) application and an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). When Plaintiff failed to submit 

either document by the deadline, the Court entered a Show Cause Order on February 2, 2024. 

(ECF No. 7). Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, IFP application, and Show Cause 

Response three days past the deadline on February 26, 2024. (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10). Plaintiff’s IFP 

application was denied, and Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee by March 5, 2024. (ECF 

Case 6:23-cv-06135-SOH Document 29 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

No. 11). Plaintiff sought, and was granted, an extension of time to pay the fee. (ECF Nos. 12, 

13). Plaintiff timely paid the fee on March 19, 2024.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that he and Defendant Barnett were both 

incarcerated in the Hot Spring County Jail on October 22, 2022. (ECF No. 8 at 4). Plaintiff alleges 

that on that day he “was just over there minding my own business, I was on my way over to use

toilet, then inmate Armani Barnett just out of nowhere just came over to me and attacked me and 

did not stop until he broke my left leg.” (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff further alleges that jail staff sat and 

watched the altercation on their cameras instead of stopping the attack. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff does 

not indicate how the attack ended. Plaintiff alleges jail staff laughed at him for being so frightened

and in such pain that he defecated in his pants. (Id. at 5). They further made him continue to wear 

the soiled clothing until the ambulance arrived approximately one hour later. (Id.). Plaintiff 

alleges other inmates and the ambulance techs also laughed at him for soiling his pants. (Id.). 

Plaintiff alleges he required emergency surgery because of the attack, and he now requires a walker 

or wheelchair to ambulate. (Id.). He alleges he will never be able to walk on his own again. (Id.). 

Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in their individual and official capacity. (Id. at 6). As his 

official capacity claim, he alleges it is the “custom at this jail to ignore assaults and not intervene 

to protect inmates.” (Id.). He seeks compensatory damages. (Id. at 10). He also requests 

Defendants to be disciplined and receive training. (Id.).

Summons sent to Defendant Barnett in the Arkansas Department of Corrections was 

retuned executed on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 24). Defendant Barnett filed his Motion to Dismiss 

on June 20, 2024. (ECF No. 26). In it, Plaintiff argues that as a detainee he was not acting under 

color of state law and, therefore, cannot be sued under § 1983. (Id.). Plaintiff has not filed a

Response to this Motion, and the time to do so has passed. 

Case 6:23-cv-06135-SOH Document 29 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Defendant Lingo is no longer an employee at the Hot Spring County Jail. (ECF No. 20 at 

2). The Court has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant Lingo, including at 

the last-known address provided by the jail. (ECF Nos. 14, 18, 20, 22). On June 21, 2024, the 

Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to provide additional address information to serve 

Defendant Lingo. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff was given until July 12, 2024, to provide this 

information. This Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff 

has not communicated with the Court since he submitted his filing fee on March 19, 2024.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Defendant Lingo

It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to provide the Court with an address for proper service 

on the Defendants. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). The Court has made 

several unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant Lingo, including at the last-known address 

provided by the Hot Spring County Jail. In the Order directing Plaintiff to provide additional 

service information, he was advised that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of Defendant 

Lingo as a party in this case. (ECF No. 27). Defendant Lingo should be terminated as a party in 

this case because Plaintiff has failed to provide a valid address for service. 

B. Defendant Inmate Barnett

Defendant Barnett remained a party at pre-service screening due to the very early stage of 

the case and out of an abundance of caution based on the seriousness of the alleged injury. We are 

now at a later stage of the case, and Plaintiff’s Complaint allegations are no longer sufficient to 

keep Defendant Barnett as a party. At the time of the alleged attack, Defendant Barnett was an 

inmate in the Hot Springs County Jail. He is now an inmate in the Arkansas Division of Correction. 

In his Motion to Dismiss him as a party, Defendant Barnett argues that he was a detainee and not 

Case 6:23-cv-06135-SOH Document 29 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

a state actor during the incident. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff has not submitted a Response to this 

Motion. 

A private person can act under color of state law for the purposes of § 1983 only if they 

are “a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 

24, 27 (1980). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state that Defendant Barnett had any 

interaction with Defendant Lingo before, during, or after the attack. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to 

mention Defendant Lingo by name in the factual portion of the claim. Plaintiff merely states that 

Defendant Barnett came “out of nowhere,” attacked him for no apparent reason, and unnamed jail 

staff failed to intervene. Defendant Barnett has now filed a Motion to Dismiss stating he is an 

inmate and not a state actor. Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to this Motion and clarify 

any possible joint action between Barnett and Lingo, but he has failed to do so. While the Court 

will liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint – and has done so in this case – the plaintiff 

must allege sufficient facts to support his claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 

2004). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim that Defendant Barnett 

was a willful participant in any joint action with Defendant Lingo regarding the attack. Defendant 

Inmate Barnett’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) should, therefore, be GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendant Barnett’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) 

be GRANTED, and both Defendants be terminated as parties in this case. It is further 

recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Referral Status: This case should not remain referred as all matters have been

recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation. 

Case 6:23-cv-06135-SOH Document 29 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

DATED this 12th day of November 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-06135-SOH Document 29 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>