Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00305/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00305-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ABRAHAM/RASHEEN GRANT/RAKIM, PLAINTIFF

ADC #128147

v. 5:16CV00305BSM-JTK

WENDY KELLEY DEFENDANT

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 (14) 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 a 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

1

Case 5:16-cv-00305-DPM Document 3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 5
not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The detail 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 nontestimonial 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

Plaintiff Abraham/Rasheen Grant/Rakim (a/k/a Abraham Grant), a state inmate

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. No. 1). Although

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by § 1915(a), his Motion

should be denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

II. SCREENING

 The Court is required to screen complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). Additionally, the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides that:

2

Case 5:16-cv-00305-DPM Document 3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 5
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on three (3) or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an

action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.

Plaintiff has had at least three complaints dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or

frivolous,1

 and is considered a “three-striker” within the meaning of the PLRA. Plaintiff

may, however, be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis if he falls under the “imminent

danger” exception to the three strikes rule set forth above. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). This

exception does not apply to allegations of past danger, and the alleged harm must be “real

and proximate” and occurring at the time the complaint is filed. Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d

526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 

In this case, Plaintiff complains that he suffers from a lack of blood flow in his legs

and that Defendant Kelley has denied him medical care and treatment (Doc. No. 2, p. 3). He

attaches a copy of a grievance he filed in July, 2016, complaining that although he submitted

a sick call to see a doctor, he was instead seen by a nurse. (Id., p. 6) In his response, the

Assistant Director referred to the Warden’s response, who noted that the ADC contracts with

a medical provider for inmate care, and that Plaintiff was seen by a medical provider. (Id.,

pp. 4-5) Based on this submission, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not allege that he is in

 1 Grant v. Norris, 5:06CV00190-GH, dismissed for failure to state a claim; Grant v.

Proctor, 2:12CV00133-SWW, dismissed as frivolous; and Grant v. Hobbs,

5:12CV00244-KGB, dismissed for failure to state a claim.

3

Case 5:16-cv-00305-DPM Document 3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 5
imminent danger of harm. Rather, he appears to be complaining about the type of treatment

he received, which does not support a constitutional claim for relief. Estate of Rosenberg v.

Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). In addition, Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendant

Kelley, the ADC Director, has denied him medical treatment does not support a claim for

relief. “[A] general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient

to establish the personal involvement required to support liability.” Camberos v. Branstad,

73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995). A prison official who is “not involved in treatment decision

made by the medical unit’s staff and ‘lacked medical expertise,...cannot be liable for the

medical staff’s diagnostic decision[s].’” Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Camberos, 73 F.3d at 176). 

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Grant/Rakim does not allege any facts

concerning his conditions of confinement to support a finding that he is in imminent danger

of serious physical injury, as provided in the statute; therefore, he should be required to pay

the filing fee in order to prosecute this action.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff Grant/Rakim’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1)

be DENIED.

2. Should Plaintiff wish to continue this case, he be required to submit the

statutory filing fee of $400.00 to the Clerk, noting the above case style and number within

4

Case 5:16-cv-00305-DPM Document 3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 5
ten (10) days of the date of this Order, together with a motion to reopen the case. Upon

receipt of the motion and full payment, the case will be reopened. 

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 2016.

_______________________________________

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

5

Case 5:16-cv-00305-DPM Document 3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 5