Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05121/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05121-1/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RONNIE KEYES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5121

 

SHERIFF TIM HELDER; 

DR. HOWARD; NURSE SUSAN

JOHNSON; and NURSE

RHONDA BRADLEY DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ronnie Keyes, an inmate in the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC), brings

this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint was filed in forma

pauperis (IFP) and it is now determined whether it should be served upon the defendants. 

On September 8, 2005, an order was entered directing the plaintiff to complete, sign, and

return an attached questionnaire that would be filed as an addendum to his complaint (Doc. 6).

The addendum was filed on September 16, 2005 (Doc. 8). Plaintiff also filed a supplement to

his complaint (Doc. 7). 

I. Discussion

Keyes contends his medication was taken off the medication cart by the medical staff.

Addendum at ¶ 4. He was asked whether Sheriff Helder was personally involved in having the

medication taken off the cart. Id. at ¶ 5. Keyes responded no. Id. He then said:

I believe that he should be held liable for the nurse and doctor’s actions because

a decision to take away medication should be approved by someone of a higher

authority, considering the seriousness of my medical conditions. The proper

chain of commands were not followed, this facility is very unjust and cruel.

Id. 

Case 5:05-cv-05121-JLH Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Keyes’ claim against Sheriff Helder is subject to dismissal. A claim of deprivation of a

constitutional right cannot be based on a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Monell v.

New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). In other words, Sheriff Helder

cannot be held liable merely because he employs the medical staff involved in making the

decision at issue. See Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997)(no evidence that the

defendants were doctors or were personally involved in making medical decisions about

treatment); Mark v. Nix, 983 F.2d 138, 139-40 (8th Cir. 1993)(section 1983 liability requires

some personal involvement or responsibility). 

II. Conclusion

I therefore recommend Keyes’ claims against Sheriff Helder be dismissed on the grounds

that the claims are frivolous and fail to state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP

action, or any portion thereof, may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). However, we

note that service of the complaint on Dr. Howard, Nurse Susan Johnson, and Nurse Rhonda

Bradley will be directed by separate order. 

Keyes has ten 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. Keyes is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 19th day of September 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05121-JLH Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>