Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00728/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00728-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

MARCUS MARQUIS MILLER, 

ADC #173068 PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 4:20-CV-728-JM-BD 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections: 

This Recommendation for dismissal has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. 

Mr. Miller may file objections if he disagrees with the findings or conclusions set out in 

the Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or 

legal basis for the objection. 

To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days. If no objections are 

filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the 

record. If he does not file objections, Mr. Miller may waive the right to appeal questions 

of fact. 

II. Discussion: 

Marcus Marquis Miller, an Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) inmate, filed 

this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2) 

In his complaint, Mr. Miller alleges that Defendant Lewis charged him with a 

disciplinary, then conducted the “C.S.O review” of that disciplinary in violation of ADC 

policy. He explains that, because Defendant Lewis is a lieutenant rather than a major, 

Case 4:20-cv-00728-JM Document 4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

assistant warden, or warden, he lacked the authority to review the disciplinary charge. He 

also alleges that Defendant Harris was aware of this act and “was a part of this illegal and 

violation of ADC policy.” (Doc. No. 2 at p.4) 

Federal courts must review prisoner complaints that name government entities, 

officers, or employees as defendants before ordering service of process. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court has reviewed Mr. Miller’s complaint. Even reading the complaint 

liberally and taking all allegations as true, Mr. Miller has not stated a federal claim for 

relief. It is settled law that an official’s failure to follow prison policies or procedures is 

not conduct that rises to the level of a constitutional violation. McClinton v. Arkansas 

Dep’t of Corr., 166 Fed. Appx. 260 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 

F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 1996)). 

III. Conclusion: 

 The Court recommends that Mr. Miller’s claims be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, based on his failure to state a federal claim for relief. The Court recommends 

that this dismissal count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Judge 

Moody certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and 

would not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 10th day of June, 2020. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00728-JM Document 4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 2