Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00235/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DARLA FERGUSON PLAINTIFF 

ADC #718912 

 

V. NO. 3:24-cv-235-BSM-ERE 

NURZUHAL FAUST, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

Pro se plaintiff Darla Ferguson, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) 

inmate, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 2. Ms. Ferguson’s original 

complaint alleged that ADC and medical officials have failed to adequately address 

her medical needs. She sued Warden Nursuhal Faust, Director Dexter Payne, APN 

Jaime Campbell, and Program Specialist Patricia Secord in both their official and 

individual capacities seeking monetary damages. 

Because Ms. Ferguson’s original complaint failed to state a medical deliberate 

indifference claim against each named Defendant, the Court postponed the screening 

process1

 to give Ms. Ferguson the opportunity to file an amended complaint 

1 Screening is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When making this 

determination, the 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). 

Case 3:24-cv-00235-BSM-ERE Document 9 Filed 01/21/25 Page 1 of 5
2 

clarifying her constitutional claims and correcting the deficiencies in her original 

complaint. Doc. 5. Ms. Ferguson has now filed an amended complaint. Doc. 6. 

Because Ms. Ferguson’s amended complaint is also deficient, the Court will provide 

her a final opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying her constitutional 

claim and correcting the deficiencies in her amended complaint. 

II. Problems with Amended Complaint 

A. Personal Involvement 

 In her amended complaint, Ms. Ferguson names Deputy Director Aundrea 

Culclager, Medical Svcs Manager Billy Cowell, Sergeant Chris Tribble, and Nurse 

Bennett as Defendants. However, Ms. Ferguson’s amended complaint again fails to 

allege facts to show how each named Defendant personally participated in 

unconstitutional conduct or were directly responsible for a constitutional violation. 

“Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, 

the deprivation of rights.” Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 

2007). Accordingly, as stated, Ms. Ferguson’s complaint fails to state a plausible 

constitutional claim against each Defendant. 

B. Medical Deliberate Indifference 

To state a plausible medical deliberate indifference claim against any 

individual Defendant, Ms. Ferguson must allege facts that, if taken as true, support 

Case 3:24-cv-00235-BSM-ERE Document 9 Filed 01/21/25 Page 2 of 5
3 

a reasonable inference that: (1) Ms. Ferguson had “objectively serious medical 

needs”; and (2) each individual Defendant “actually knew of but deliberately 

disregarded those needs.” Hamner v. Burls, 937 F.3d 1171, 1177 (8th Cir. 2019); 

see also Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir. 2016). 

Ms. Ferguson’s amended complaint again alleges no facts to show: (1) how 

each individual Defendant was aware of Ms. Ferguson’s need for medical treatment; 

or (2) what each individual Defendant did or failed to do that allegedly denied her 

constitutionally adequate medical care. Thus, Ms. Ferguson’s proposed medical 

deliberate indifference claim, as described in her current complaint, cannot survive 

screening. 

B. Additional Party Plaintiffs 

In her amended complaint, Ms. Ferguson also lists additional individuals as 

party plaintiffs. However, “[a] prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other 

prisoners” and, instead, may proceed only on the alleged constitutional violations 

that she personally experienced and the harm that she personally suffered. Martin v. 

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

III. Guidelines for Filing Amended Complaint

Ms. Ferguson again has thirty days to file a second amended complaint. If Ms. 

Ferguson files a second amended complaint, she should: (1) identify and name as 

Defendants the individuals who allegedly violated her constitutional rights; (2) 

Case 3:24-cv-00235-BSM-ERE Document 9 Filed 01/21/25 Page 3 of 5
4 

explain how each Defendant personally violated her constitutional rights; and (3) 

describe how she was harmed or injured as a result of each Defendant’s alleged 

unconstitutional conduct. 

Ms. Ferguson’s second amended complaint, if filed, will supersede or replace 

the current complaint. See In re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 

2000) (an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the 

original complaint without legal effect). So, Ms. Ferguson should make sure that 

her amended complaint includes all allegations relevant to the claim(s) she 

wants to pursue in this lawsuit. Also, Ms. Ferguson should not rely upon, or 

incorporate by reference, any allegations made in her original complaint. In other 

words, Ms. Ferguson’s amended complaint, if filed, will stand alone. 

Finally, in her second amended complaint, Ms. Ferguson need only include a 

“short and plain statement” showing that she is entitled to relief, with factual 

allegations that are “simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1) & (d). At 

this early stage, there is no need to identify witnesses or to describe evidence that 

she may rely on later to prove her claim. 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

Case 3:24-cv-00235-BSM-ERE Document 9 Filed 01/21/25 Page 4 of 5
5 

1. Ms. Ferguson may file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) 

days of the entry of this Order. 

2. If Ms. Ferguson fails to file a second amended complaint, the Court will 

screen her amended complaint, which is likely to result in the dismissal of Ms. 

Ferguson’s claims. 

3. The Clerk is instructed to provide Ms. Ferguson a blank 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 complaint form, along with a copy of this Order. 

SO ORDERED 21 January 2025. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:24-cv-00235-BSM-ERE Document 9 Filed 01/21/25 Page 5 of 5