Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00936/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00936-1/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 

CARLOS RAY FRAZIER 

ADC #650936 PLAINTIFF 

 

V. NO. 4:24-cv-00936-KGB-ERE 

CAMERON JOHNSON, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

I. Procedure for Filing Objections 

 This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Chief Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual 

and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not object, 

you risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact and Chief Judge Baker can 

adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.

II. Background 

 Pro se plaintiff Carlos Ray Frazier, an inmate at the W.C. Brassell Adult 

Detention Center, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 2. Mr. Frazier’s 

complaint alleges that: (1) on October 22, 2024, Sheriff Deputy Cameron Johnson 

and Sheriff Deputy M. Bennett allowed a barracks porter to threaten him; (2) Deputy 

Washington then allowed the barracks porter to approach Mr. Frazier’s cell door with 

Case 4:24-cv-00936-KGB Document 5 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

a weapon; (3) although Mail Lady Judy Brawley removed the barracks porter from 

Mr. Frazier’s cell, she failed to remove him from his position as barracks porter; and 

(4) Major Thompkins allowed the barracks porter to have access to Mr. Frazier’s 

cell. 

Although Mr. Frazier has arguably stated a plausible failure to protect claim 

against each Defendant, he sued Defendants in their official capacities only seeking 

both monetary and injunctive relief.1

 

 Under the law, Mr. Frazier’s official-capacity claims are treated as claims 

against Jefferson County, which employs the individual Defendants. Brewington v. 

Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018). Jefferson County cannot be held 

vicariously liable under § 1983 for the acts of its employees. Id. at 800-01 (citing 

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978)). 

Although not automatically legally responsible for constitutional violations 

committed by employees, Jefferson County can face § 1983 liability when its own 

policies, customs, or practices cause constitutional deprivations. Brewington, 902 

F.3d at 801-02; Corwin v. City of Independence, Missouri, 829 F.3d 695, 699-700 

(8th Cir. 2016). But Mr. Frazier’s complaint contains no allegations suggesting that 

1 Although Mr. Frazier is considered a three-striker, based on the allegations 

contained in his complaint, he has satisfied the imminent danger exception to the three 

strikes rule. 

Case 4:24-cv-00936-KGB Document 5 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

a Jefferson County policy, practice, or custom caused his injury. As a result, he has 

failed to plead a plausible official-capacity claim. 

On October 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order explaining to Mr. Frazier 

that his original complaint was deficient. Doc. 4. The Court gave Mr. Frazier an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint correcting the pleading deficiencies and 

warned him that the failure to do so would likely result in dismissal of this case. Id. 

at 4. 

 To date, Mr. Frazier has not filed an amended complaint, and the time to do 

so has passed. The Court will therefore screen Mr. Frazier’s original complaint, as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

III. Discussion 

A. Screening 

Screening is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 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. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the 

factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents 

Case 4:24-cv-00936-KGB Document 5 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. 

Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011). 

B. Official Capacity Claims 

 As explained above, Mr. Frazier’s official-capacity claims are treated as 

claims against Jefferson County, Defendants’ employer. Brewington v. Keener, 

supra. Jefferson County cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the acts 

of county employees. Id. at 800-01 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social 

Services, supra). Because Mr. Frazier’s complaint does not allege that he suffered 

any constitutional injury as a result of any Jefferson County policy or practice, his 

complaint fails to state a plausible constitutional claim for relief. 

IV. Conclusion: 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Mr. Frazier’s complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on 

his failure to state a plausible constitutional claim for relief. 

2. The Clerk be instructed to close this case. 

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal 

would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

4. In the future, this dismissal be considered a “strike” for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 4:24-cv-00936-KGB Document 5 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

DATED 5 December 2024. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:24-cv-00936-KGB Document 5 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 5