Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00011/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00011-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LISA RYAN MURPHY PLAINTIFF 

ADC #760343 

V. No. 3:20CV00011-DPM-JTR 

BRADLEY, Warden, 

McPherson Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Lisa Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”) is a prisoner in the McPherson Unit 

of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”). She has filed a pro se § 1983 

Complaint alleging that Defendants violated her constitutional rights. Doc. 2. Before 

Murphy may proceed with this case, the Court must screen her claims.1

 Murphy alleges that Defendants are being deliberately indifferent to her 

“potentially deadly” heart condition in retaliation for prior legal actions she has filed 

against them. Specifically, she alleges that: (1) Defendants Dr. Hughes, APN 

Hutchinson, DON Baker, Dr. Steive, Dr. Griffen, and Nurse Kizer have discontinued 

 1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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. Id. § 1915A(b). When 

making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the 

complaint, and it may consider 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 3:20-cv-00011-DPM Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

or refuse to provide treatment for her diagnosed heart disease, which causes pain, 

vomiting, dizzy spells, shortness of breath, sweating, an elevated heart rate, 

palpitations, and weakness; and (2) Defendants Warden Bradley, Warden 

Hearington, Major Leuis and Captain Swift have refused to help after being 

informed of medical staff’s denial of treatment. As relief, she seeks monetary 

damages and injunctive relief. 

 Murphy is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2

 In a separate Order 

(Doc. 3), the Court has determined that Murphy’s allegations are sufficient to satisfy 

the “imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes rule. See id. (providing that 

prisoner who has had three or more cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for 

failure to state a claim, should, nevertheless, be granted permission to proceed in 

forma pauperis if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury”). 

 The Court also concludes, for screening purposes only, that Murphy has pled 

viable § 1983 claims against each of the Defendants based on those allegations. 

Thus, service will be ordered. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

 2

See, e.g., Murphy v. Faust, No. 1:14-cv-00127-JM (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2014) (dismissing 

for failure to state a claim); Murphy v. Culclager, No. 1:15-cv-00027-BSM (E.D. Ark. June 5, 

2015) (same); Murphy v. Kelly, No. 1:15-cv-00044-JM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 27, 2015) (same); Murphy 

v. Robinson, No. 1:15-cv-00047-JM (E.D. Ark. June 24, 2015) (dismissing as frivolous); Murphy 

v. Fisk, No. 1:15-cv-00050-BSM (E.D. Ark. July 24, 2015) (dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Case 3:20-cv-00011-DPM Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

 1. Murphy may PROCEED with her § 1983 claims against Dr. Hughes, 

APN Hutchinson, DON Baker, Dr. Steive, Dr. Griffen, Nurse Kizer, Warden 

Bradley, Warden Hearington, Major Leuis, and Captain Swift. 

 2. The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Hughes, Hutchinson, 

Baker, Steive, Griffen, and Kizer. The United States Marshal is directed to serve the 

summons and Complaint (Doc. 2), and this Order, on Hughes, Hutchinson, Baker, 

Steive, Griffen, and Kizer through the Humphries, Odum & Eubanks law firm 

without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor. 

 3. The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Bradley, Hearington, 

Leuis, and Swift. The United States Marshal is directed to serve the summons and 

Complaint (Doc. 2), and this Order, on Bradley, Hearington, Leuis, and Swift 

through the ADC Compliance Division without prepayment of fees and costs or 

security therefor. 

4. If any Defendant is no longer employed by the ADC or its healthcare 

provider, the individual responding to service must file a sealed statement providing 

the unserved Defendant’s last known private mailing address. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:20-cv-00011-DPM Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 3