Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_21-cv-00169/USCOURTS-ared-2_21-cv-00169-1/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 

DELTA DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER A. THORNSBERRY PLAINTIFF 

ADC #169180 

v. No: 2:21-cv-00169 LPR-PSH 

CARRIE GRANVILLE, et al. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Christopher A. Thornsberry, an inmate at the Arkansas Division of 

Correction’s East Arkansas Regional Unit, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

on December 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 2). At the Court’s direction, Thornsberry filed an 

Amended Complaint to clarify his claims (Doc. No. 4). Thornsberry’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and service was ordered on defendants 

Corporal Counselor, Sergeant Carrie Granville, Corporal Streeter, and Corporal 

Qudarius Morris (the “Defendants”). Doc. Nos. 3, 7 & 26. Thornsberry sues 

Defendants in their official and personal capacities and seeks compensatory, 

punitive, and nominal damages. See Doc. No. 4 at 2 & 11. 

 Defendant Granville moves to dismiss Thornsberry’s claims against her for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. Nos. 16-17. 

Specifically, Granville argues that Thornsberry’s allegations, even if true, do not 

state a cognizable claim of a constitutional violation. Doc. No. 17. She also argues 

Case 2:21-cv-00169-LPR-PSH Document 45 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 3
that Thornsberry’s official capacity claims for money damages are barred by 

sovereign immunity. Id. 

 Thornsberry filed a response to Granville’s motion (Doc. No. 23). In his 

response, Thornsberry includes additional factual allegations regarding his claims 

against Granville that were not present in his Amended Complaint. Specifically, he 

asserts, for the first time, that Granville was involved in having the attacker placed 

in his cell and that Granville knew this inmate wanted to cause Thornsberry harm 

because she heard him calling Thornsberry profane names and threatening him many 

times before. Doc. No. 23 at 2-4. 

 The Court cannot consider allegations outside Thornsberry’s amended 

complaint when making a recommendation on Granville’s motion to dismiss. See 

Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998) 

(“When analyzing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we accept the factual allegations 

contained in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to 

the plaintiff.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court will allow Thornsberry the 

opportunity to amend his complaint one final time. If he intends to do so, he must 

file a Second Amended Complaint by October 31, 2022. If he does not, the Court 

will consider only the factual allegations present in Thornsberry’s Amended 

Complaint (Doc. No. 4) when the Court analyzes Granville’s Motion to Dismiss. If 

Thornsberry timely files a Second Amended Complaint, Granville shall have 21 days 

Case 2:21-cv-00169-LPR-PSH Document 45 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 3
to renew or amend her motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

 The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank § 1983 complaint form to 

Thornsberry. Thornsberry is cautioned that a Second Amended Complaint will 

render his Amended Complaint without legal effect; only claims properly set out in 

the Second Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2022. 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00169-LPR-PSH Document 45 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 3