Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00227/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00227-0/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

JAMES A. LONG PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 4:20-CV-227-JM-BD

ANGIE WILLIAMS and

ERIC HIGGINS DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections: 

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Mr. Long may 

file objections if he disagrees with the findings or conclusions set out in the 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal 

basis for the objection. 

To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk 

within 14 days. If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation 

without independently reviewing the record. If he does not file objections, Mr. Long may 

waive any right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion:

A. Background

Mr. Long, a pre-trial detainee at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (Detention 

Facility), filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer. (Docket entry #2) In 

his complaint, Mr. Long claims that, in February of 2020, Defendant Williams violated 

his first amendment rights by opening his privileged legal mail outside his presence.

Case 4:20-cv-00227-JM Document 4 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 4
2

B. Standard

Before ordering service of process, federal courts must review prisoner complaints 

that seek relief from a government entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

After assessing the complaint, the Court must dismiss claims that fail to adequately state 

claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). As explained below, Mr. Long’s complaint 

should not move forward because his allegations, even if true, fail to state federal claims. 

C. Claim against Defendant Williams

In his complaint, Mr. Long alleges that Defendant Williams opened his legal mail

on one occasion. Mr. Long did not state, however, whether the letter at issue came from 

the court or from his attorney. Privileged prisoner mail is limited to mail to or from an 

inmate’s attorney and identified as such. Jensen v. Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1182 (8th Cir.

1981). 

But even if the mail at issue was privileged prisoner mail, Mr. Long cannot prevail 

on this claim. There is no constitutional liability for an isolated, inadvertent instance of 

opening incoming confidential legal mail. To state a claim, there must be evidence of an 

improper motive or resulting interference with the inmate’s right to counsel or access to 

the courts. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997). Here, Mr. Long does 

not allege that Defendant Williams opened his mail because of an improper motive. 

Further, he does not allege that this incident interfered with his ability to access the courts 

Case 4:20-cv-00227-JM Document 4 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 4
3

or that he suffered prejudice as a result of the improperly opened mail. For these reasons, 

this claim against Defendant Williams should not move forward.1

 

D. Defendant Higgins

Mr. Long also claims that Defendant Higgins is liable based on his

role as Defendant Williams’s supervisor. He has not stated a claim for relief against 

Defendant Higgins. In a case such as this, a supervisor cannot be held liable for the 

constitutional violations of a subordinate simply because he was the supervisor. Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (U.S. 2009); Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 

993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) 

(holding that the “general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is 

insufficient to establish the personal involvement required to support [§1983] liability”). 

Instead, a prisoner “must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, 

129 S.Ct. at 1948. 

A jail supervisor can be held liable for failing to properly supervise subordinates 

by tacitly authorizing a constitutional violation or by failing to take corrective action in 

response to such a violation. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995); Choate v. 

Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993). To state a valid failure to supervise claim, a 

 1 To the extent that Mr. Long claims that Defendant Williams violated Detention Facility 

policy, this claim also fails. Failing to follow jail policies or procedures is not conduct 

that rises to the level of a constitutional claim. McClinton v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 166 

Fed. Appx. 260 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th 

Cir. 1996)).

Case 4:20-cv-00227-JM Document 4 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4

prisoner must allege that the prisoner supervisor: “(1) received notice of a pattern of 

unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates; (2) demonstrated deliberated 

indifference to or tacit authorization of the offensive acts; (3) failed to take sufficient 

remedial action; and (4) that such failure proximately caused the injury.” Parrish v. Ball, 

594 F.3d 993, 1002 (8th Cir. 2010). Significantly, a “single incident, or series of isolated 

incidents, usually provides an insufficient basis upon which to assign supervisor 

liability.” Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Here, Mr. Long does not allege that Defendant Williams engaged in a pattern of 

opening inmates’ legal mail, or that Defendant Griffin knew of such a pattern of 

misconduct. Accordingly, Mr. Long’s claims against Defendant Griffin should not move 

forward. 

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Long’s claims be DISMISSED, without

prejudice. The Court also recommends that this dismissal constitute a “strike” for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Judge Moody certify that an in forma pauperis

appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2020.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00227-JM Document 4 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 4