Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00507/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00507-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

CARLA COHENS PLAINTIFF

V. 4:08CV00507 JLH/JTR

WOOLWORTH CORPORATION and

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY

COMPANY DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

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

Holmes. 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

Clerk no later than eleven (11) 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 United States District Judge,

you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a “Statement of Necessity”

that sets forth the following:

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

Case 4:08-cv-00507-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 4
1

 United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes referred all pretrial matters to this Court

for disposition or recommended disposition. (Docket entry #4.)

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the

United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the

Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other

evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be

introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District

Judge. 

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

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A 149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

I. Background

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion

to Appoint Counsel.1

 (Docket entries #1 and #3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court

recommends that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, rendering Plaintiff’s Motions moot.

In Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, she alleges that, on February 27, 1995, she suffered a

permanent injury while working for Defendant Woolworth Corporation, who refused to provide her

with adequate medical care. She further alleges that Defendants forced her to seek medical treatment

from a pro-employer physician in the workers’ compensation process. According to Plaintiff, her

unfair treatment forced her to apply for Social Security benefits, in December of 1996. Over seven

years later, on May 12, 2004, Plaintiff began receiving Social Security benefits. (Docket entry #2.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants: (1) violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2)

Case 4:08-cv-00507-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 4
provided perjured testimony to a “Federal Judge”; and (3) bribed other employees to prevent

workers’ compensation cases. Although not named as a defendant, Plaintiff also alleges that her

physician provided her with inadequate medical care. Plaintiff requests lost wages, future medical

expenses, punitive damages, and an investigation of her physician.

II. Discussion

While 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) allows for the commencement of a suit, without the

prepayment of fees, the statute goes on to provide that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time”

upon a determination that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On May 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint, in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, asserting the same allegations and claims against

the identical defendants named in this action. See, Cohens v. Woolworth Corporation et al., E.D.

Ark. No. 4:08CV00423 JMM. On May 15, 2008, United States District Judge James M. Moody

dismissed the case, concluding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that the statute

of limitations had run on her claims. Id. at docket entry #3.

The Court agrees with Judge Moody’s analysis of Plaintiff’s claims. If Plaintiff believes that

her original case was dismissed in error, her recourse is to pursue an appeal to the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Plaintiff is directed not to file any more duplicative actions in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking to relitigate the claims previously

dismissed in case No. 4:08CV00423 JMM. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (docket entry #2), and this action, be DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Case 4:08-cv-00507-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/16/08 Page 3 of 4
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (docket entry #1) and Motion to

Appoint Counsel (docket entry #3) be DENIED, AS MOOT.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2008.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00507-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/16/08 Page 4 of 4