Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05014/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RODERICK JACKSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05014-TLB-CDC

 

WALMART, INC. DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Roderick Jackson (“Jackson”), filed this action seeking to recover for damage to 

his reputation. Jackson proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Pursuant to the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States 

District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and 

Recommendation. The case is before the Court for preservice screening of the Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 6) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

I. BACKGROUND

Jackson filed his original Complaint on January 17, 2024. (ECF No. 2). Upon review of 

his Complaint, it was determined that he failed to properly complete the civil complaint form 

making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to determine the jurisdictional, legal, and factual 

basis of his claim for “[r]eputation damages by Lp” of a Wal-Mart store in Omaha, Nebraska on 

March 13, 2021. For this reason, Jackson was ordered to file an Amended Complaint by February 

14, 2024. (ECF No. 5). Jackson timely filed his Amended Complaint on February 9, 2024. 

(ECF No. 6). Jackson’s IFP application was incomplete, and he was directed to submit a 

completed IFP by March 6, 2024. (ECF No. 7). Jackson responded by filing another incomplete 

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

IFP application on February 28, 2024. (ECF No. 8). Jackson was advised he had to supply the 

Court with information regarding his income even if the income was sporadic. (ECF No. 9). He 

was given until March 20, 2024, to supply a complete IFP application. On March 18, 2024, 

Jackson filed a completed IFP application. (ECF No. 10). That same day, the IFP application 

was granted. (ECF No. 11). The Amended Complaint is before the Court for screening.

As the basis for jurisdiction, Jackson indicates the Court has federal question jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 6 at 3). Jackson cites the Court to 15 U.S.C. § 6604. Id. 

In his statement of the claim, Jackson says: “Has caused distress from incident of 

Defendant towards the plaintiff in many ways.” (ECF No. 6 at 4). As relief, Jackson asks for 

$100 million in damages and for Wal-Mart to be required to pay his Court fees. Id. In his 

original Complaint, Jackson alleged damages to his reputation caused by “Lp” of a Wal-Mart store 

in Omaha, Nebraska, on March 13, 2021. (ECF No. 2 at 4). He does not provide a factual 

description of what occurred on that day.

1

As noted, Jackson’s statement of his claim in his Amended Complaint is slightly different 

from that articulated in the original Complaint. Rather than direct Plaintiff to submit a second 

amended complaint, this Court construes Jackson’s claims by reading the original Complaint and 

1 Jackson first filed suit against Wal-Mart on September 29, 2021. Jackson v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 

Civil No. 5:21-cv-05066. The Amended Complaint alleged a loss prevention employee of WalMart engaged in racial profiling which led to Jackson being accused of a crime and arrested on 

March 13, 2021. (ECF No. 4 at 4). The case was dismissed for improper service on September 

29, 2021. (ECF No. 18 at 2). Currently, Jackson has this and three other cases pending against 

Wal-Mart. See Jackson v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Civil No. 5:24-cv-05004 (allegation that he was falsely 

accused of shop lifting at an Omaha, Nebraska, Wal-Mart store on March 13, 2021); Jackson v. 

Wal-Mart, Inc., Civil No. 5:24-cv-05005 (civil rights violation occurred at a Wal-Mart store in 

Omaha, Nebraska, on March 13, 2021); Jackson v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Civil No. 5:24-cv-05013 

(violation of §1983 by an “Lp” of a Wal-Mart store in Omaha, Nebraska—no date of incident 

provided).

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

the Amended Complaint together. See Kirr v. North Dakota Public Health, 651 F. App’x 567, 

568 (8th Cir. 2016) (concluding that pro se plaintiff’s original complaint and two amendments 

“should have been read together” as constituting his complaint); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 

783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (pro se complaint must be liberally construed and plaintiff clearly 

intended for amended complaint to be read together with original complaint).

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are 

frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iiii).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be 

false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather 

than to vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); 

In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro 

se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however 

inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” 

Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007)). However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. 

Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

III. DISCUSSION

Jackson maintains this Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6604. 

Section 6604 provides that “[i]n any Y2K action in which punitive damages are permitted by 

applicable law, the defendant shall not be liable for punitive damages unless the plaintiff proves 

by clear and convincing evidence that the applicable standard for awarding damages has been 

met.” 15 U.S.C. § 6604(a). Subsection (b) places a cap on the amount of punitive damages 

recoverable. 15 U.S.C. § 6604(b). The chapter applies “to any Y2K action brought after January 

1, 1999, for a Y2K failure occurring before January 1, 2003, or for a potential Y2K failure that 

could occur or has allegedly caused harm or injury before January 1, 2003.” 15 U.S.C. 6603(a). 

The term Y2K action “means a civil action commenced in any Federal or State court, or an agency 

board of contract appeal proceeding, in which the plaintiff’s alleged harm or injury arises from or 

is related to an actual or potential Y2K failure, or a claim or defense arises from or is related to an 

actual or potential Y2K failure.” 15 U.S.C. § 6602(1)(A). The term Y2K failure “means failure 

by a device or system (including any computer system and any microchip or integrated circuit 

embedded in another device or product), or any software, firmware, or other set or collection of 

processing instructions to process, calculate, to compare, to sequence, to display, to store, to 

transmit, or to receive year-2000 date-related data.” 15 U.S.C. § 6602(2). 

Jackson’s threadbare allegations in this case are clearly insufficient to state a claim under 

15 U.S.C. § 6604 or otherwise. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a complaint must 

plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action 

[that are] supported by mere conclusory statements”). Even considering the Complaint and 

Amended Complaint together and giving them an extremely liberal reading, Jackson has failed to 

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

provide sufficient factual allegations from which the Court could reasonably infer that Wal-Mart 

violated Jackson’s constitutional rights. Damage to reputation is not considered a liberty or 

property interest redressable under the Constitution. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-12 (1976) 

(determining that regardless of the seriousness of the defamatory publication, the harm to 

plaintiff’s reputation “did not deprive him of any liberty or property interests protected by the Due 

Process Clause”); Ellingburg v. Lucas, 518 F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975) (“a defamed person 

has not been deprived of any right, privilege or immunity secured to him by the Federal 

Constitution or the laws of the United States”). 

Furthermore, in the absence of an allegation that the police rely on store employees to 

perform police functions, Wal-Mart is a private corporation and does not act under color of state 

law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See e.g., Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 266 

F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2001) (Hy-Vee did not act under color of law when detaining a suspected 

shoplifter in reliance on a statute which authorized merchants to detain suspected shoplifters in a 

reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate whether there had been shoplifting); 

Hanuman v. Groves, 41 Fed. App’x 7 (8th Cir. 2002) (Wal-Mart and its employees were not state 

actors when detaining a suspected shoplifter); Tully v. Lee, No. 5:23-cv-05155-TLB-CDC, 2023 

WL 700672 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 4, 2023) (same).

No plausible federal constitutional claim is stated. To the extent Jackson is asserting state 

law claims, the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) as 

all claims over which the Court would have original jurisdiction are being dismissed.

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
6

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is recommended that:

• All federal claims be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) and for lack of jurisdiction;

• The Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(c)(3).

Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and 

Recommendation.

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.

RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March 2024.

s/ Christy Comstock

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05014-TLB Document 12 Filed 03/25/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>