Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00303/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00303-0/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 

CLARENCE ANDERSON PLAINTIFF 

ADC #165441 

 

v. 3:19-cv-00303-BSM-JJV 

PHILLIP STERLING, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the 

objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen days from the date of the findings and 

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

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

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 6
2

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

 Clarence Anderson (“Plaintiff”), in custody at the Craighead County Detention Center, is 

proceeding pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff sued Craighead County 

Correction Officers Phillip Sterling and Austin McFarland in their personal and official capacities, 

seeking damages. (Id. at 2, 5.) After careful review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, I recommend his 

claims be dismissed without prejudice. 

II. SCREENING 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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 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). 

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

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 6
3

granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual allegations must be 

weighted in favor of Plaintiff. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “In other words, the 

§ 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even 

been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed 

facts.” Id. But whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing pro se, his complaint 

must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 

(8th Cir. 1985). 

 III. ANALYSIS 

As a part of the screening process, on November 18, 2019, I notified Plaintiff that his 

Complaint, as currently pled, failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 

6 at 3-6.) I explained in detail why Plaintiff’s claims were deficient. (Id.) Plaintiff was given 

thirty (30) days to cure the Complaint’s defects by filing a superseding Amended Complaint; a 

blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was mailed to him. (Id.) Further, I advised Plaintiff of what his Amended 

Complaint should include, if he chose to file one. (Id. at 6.) He was cautioned that if he did not 

file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days, his Complaint could be dismissed without 

prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint and the time for doing so has passed. 

Accordingly, I will continue screening his original Complaint. 

As mentioned above, Plaintiff sued Defendants in the personal and official capacities. 

Plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety read: 

Under Code 592 U.S. @ 318, 120 S. Ct. 1495 Correctional Officer Mister Sterling 

has been harassing Inmates of any ethnic color/background other than his own from 

insults of a variety from slavery to racial slurs calling all African Americans lazy 

and demanding certain inmates to fulfill more than their job description entitles. 

For the record, the officers’ names are: Phillip Sterling + Austin McFarland. 

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 6
4

(Doc. No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff’s claims fail for the reasons set out below. 

A. Official Capacity Claims 

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are the equivalent of claims against Craighead County. 

See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). Because Plaintiff did 

not identify a policy, practice, or custom he maintains was the driving force behind the alleged 

violation of his rights, there is no basis upon which to establish municipal liability and his official 

capacity claims should be dismissed.

B. Claims on Behalf of Others

Plaintiff complains that Defendants harassed inmates of different ethnicities and 

backgrounds than their own. (Doc. No. 2 at 4.) Pro se litigants, however, are not authorized to 

represent the rights, claims and interests of other parties in any cause of action. Fymbo v. State 

Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (“A litigant may bring his own 

claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others”); Knoefler v. United Bank of 

Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another 

entity.”). To the extent Plaintiff attempted to make claims on behalf of others, he may not do so. 

C. No Personal Harm Alleged 

Plaintiff has not explained how he was personally harmed by Defendants’ alleged actions. 

Without alleged harm, Plaintiff failed to state a claim. 

D. Racial Slurs Alone Insufficient to State a Claim 

Without more, verbal harassment and the use of offensive language, including racial slurs, 

does not state a claim on which relief may be granted. McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th 

Cir. 1993); Black Spotted Horse v. Else, 767 F.2d 516, 517 (8th Cir. 1985). 

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 6
5

E. Work Outside of Job Title Alone Insufficient to State a Claim 

Plaintiff alleged Defendants require “certain inmates to fulfill more than their job 

description entitles.” (Doc. No. 2 at 4.) As currently pled, Plaintiff’s claims fail because a prisoner 

has no protected liberty interest in holding a certain job or job duties. Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 

683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002); Battle v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corr., 40 Fed. Appx. 308 (8th Cir. 2002). 

F. Damages for Emotional Distress 

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $20,000 for emotional distress. (Doc. No. 2 at 

5.) The Prison Litigation and Reform Act provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought 

by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotion injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing 

of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Because Plaintiff 

has not alleged physical injury or the commission of a sexual act, he is not entitled to damages for 

emotional distress. 

Plaintiff was advised in detail regarding the deficiencies in his Complaint, and I also 

explained in detail what Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should include if he chose to file one. He 

chose not to amend. His claims as pled fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and 

his Complaint should be dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 2) be dismissed without prejudice. 

 3. This dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 6
6

 4. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis 

appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would 

not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 23rd day of December 2019. 

 ___________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00303-BSM Document 7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 6