Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00106/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00106-1/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

CHARLES ALEXANDER/RYAHIM 

ADC #111057 PLAINTIFF

V. 5:04CV00106 SWW/JTR

 

RANDALL E. MANUS, Cummins Unit,

Arkansas Department of Correction DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Susan

Webber Wright. 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 fourteen (14) 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.

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

Case 5:04-cv-00106-SWW Document 100 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 4
1

 On January 28, 2010, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge,

referred the Motion to this Court for resolution. See docket entry #99. 

-2-

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 A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is a pro se Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement filed by

Charles Alexander/Ryahim, a prisoner in the Arkansas Department of Correction . See docket entry

#98. For the following reasons, the Court recommends that the Motion be denied.1

II. Discussion

In March of 2004, Ryahim commenced this § 1983 action alleging that Defendant, Randall

Manus, violated his First Amendment right to access the courts when he wrongfully prevented

Plaintiff from timely filing a federal habeas petition. See docket entries #2, #14, and #29. In 2008,

Plaintiff, who was assisted by appointed counsel, settled his claim against Defendant. See docket

entries #96 and #97. Accordingly, on April 30, 2008, the Court dismissed this action, with

prejudice. Id.

Case 5:04-cv-00106-SWW Document 100 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 4
2

 Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a copy of the Settlement Agreement. 

3

 While the Settlement Agreement may contain a “no retaliation” clause, it has no force or

effect in conferring any legal rights or benefits to Plaintiff. As a matter of law, no state actor can

retaliate against a prisoner for exercising his or her constitutional rights. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486

F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007); Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004).

-3-

In the pending Motion, Ryahim asserts that Defendant has violated an alleged “no

retaliation” clause contained in the 2008 Settlement Agreement.2

 See docket entry #98. 

Specifically, he alleges that Defendant has retaliated against him by: (1) transferring him to another

unit; (2) reducing his custody status; and (3) housing him in a two-man cell with dangerous inmates.

Id. He also alleges that Defendant is currently denying him access to the courts by preventing him

from filing a new, successive habeas petition in federal court. Id.

The allegedly retaliatory conduct of Defendant constitutes new constitutional violations

arising after Plaintiff executed the 2008 Settlement Agreement.3 Thus, he must pursue those claims

by filing a new § 1983 action after he has fully and properly exhausted his administrative remedies.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris,

218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000).

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (docket entry #98) be

DENIED.

2. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from any Order adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken in good faith.

Case 5:04-cv-00106-SWW Document 100 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 4
-4-

Dated this 11th day of February, 2010.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00106-SWW Document 100 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 4