Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05217/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TODD BERKLEY O’DONNELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05217-TLB-CDC

 

SERGEANT BAKER, Benton County

Jail; JUDGE ROBIN GREEN; and 

TRANSPORT OFFICER WICKE, Benton

County Jail DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Todd B. O’Donnell, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. However, because 

not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document 

will be dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims, this document will be filed as a Report and 

Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge 

Timothy L. Brooks. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

General Order 2024-02. 

The case is before the Court for preservice screening of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

I. BACKGROUND

In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that when he was in the shower Defendant Baker removed 

his towel and clothing, “snatched” him out of the shower, and slammed him into the wall. (ECF 

No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges he was forced to exit the shower naked in front of female officers. 

Case 5:24-cv-05217-TLB-CDC Document 6 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Id. Plaintiff maintains the incident was demoralizing; he was physically hurt and emotionally 

traumatized; and he felt he had been sexually assaulted. Id. at 5. 

In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Green held him in pretrial confinement for eight 

hundred and forty-eight days before he was sent for a forensic evaluation. (ECF No. 1 at 6). He 

believes Defendant Green held him too long on pretrial confinement. Id. at 7. 

In Claim Three, Plaintiff contends that unnamed transport officers and Defendant Wicke0F

1

used excessive force against him when he was tackled in the courtroom and his smock fell off him 

in front of eleven female inmates. (ECF No. 1 at 8). Plaintiff alleges he was then escorted down 

the hallway naked. Id. Plaintiff states Defendant Wicke was present and witnessed the abuse. 

Id.

As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 9). Plaintiff 

also asks for the criminal case against him to be dismissed. Id. 

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are 

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

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

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

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

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff 

has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully 

1 It is difficult to discern whether Plaintiff maintains Defendant Wicke used excessive physical 

force against him or if Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Wicke liable on a failure to protect theory.

Case 5:24-cv-05217-TLB-CDC Document 6 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. 

Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 

However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin 

v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

III. DISCUSSION

The claims against Defendant Green are subject to dismissal. “Few doctrines were more 

solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for liability for damages for acts 

committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). The 

Supreme Court “has pronounced and followed this doctrine of the common law for more than a 

century.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199 (1985) (citation omitted). 

Judicial immunity is only overcome in two narrow situations: (1) if the challenged act is 

non-judicial; and (2) if the action, although judicial in nature, was taken in the complete absence 

of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Id. Moreover, “[a] judge will not 

be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in 

excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear 

absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s factual allegations against Defendant Green deal with actions she took in her 

judicial capacity. Thus, any claim for damages is barred. 

Furthermore, § 1983 precludes injunctive relief against a judicial officer “for an act or 

omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity . . . unless a declaratory decree was violated or 

declaratory relief was unavailable. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that a 

declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Judicial Network Inc. 

Case 5:24-cv-05217-TLB-CDC Document 6 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

v. Craighead Cty., 931 F.3d 753, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2019). Therefore, Defendant Green is immune

from suit. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is recommended that the claims against Defendant Green be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as she is immune from suit. By separate 

Order the Complaint will be served on Defendants Baker and Wicke.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file 

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

are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by 

the district court.

Status of Referral: This case should remain referred for all matters not 

recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.

RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November 2024. 

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05217-TLB-CDC Document 6 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>