Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00028/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00028-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ANTHONY ROGERS PLAINTIFF 

v. 3:24-cv-00028-DPM-JJV 

BRAD SNYDER, 

Sheriff, Greene County; et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United 

States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and 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. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States 

District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Recommendation. 

Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Anthony Rogers (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee in the Greene County Detention Facility 

(“GCDF”) who brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In April 2024, he filed a 

141-page Amended Complaint raising a variety of factually and legally unrelated claims against 

numerous Defendants at the GCDF. (Doc. 6) On May 3, 2024, I entered an Order explaining to 

Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20 and contained several other 

pleading deficiencies.1

 (Doc. 7.) I then gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a Second Amended 

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints and 

dismiss any claims that: (1) are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted; or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A.

Case 3:24-cv-00028-DPM-JJV Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

Complaint curing those problems. And, importantly, I cautioned Plaintiff that if he continued to 

include improperly joined claims, I would only screen the first properly joined set and recommend 

all others be dismissed as improperly joined without individually screening them. See Pierce v. 

Homecomings Fin., LLC, No. 1:17-cv-882-BKS-CFH, 2018 WL 2187384, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 

1, 2018) (a pro se litigant cannot throw a myriad of claims at the court to “see what sticks”); 

Scarlett v. United States, No. 16-80017-CR, 2017 WL 11473755, at*17 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2017) 

(same). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has recently filed a Second Amended Complaint that again includes a variety of 

improperly joined claims against multiple Defendants. (Doc. 8.) In his first set of properly joined 

claims, Plaintiff says on January 13, 2024, Sergeant Cameron Hughes and Officer Ethan 

Huffsettler conducted an illegal strip search when he returned to the GCDF from another jail, 

forced him to have a bowel movement in their presence, denied him medical care when he passed 

an “alarming amount of blood” in his stool, and wrongfully seized confidential communications 

with his attorney because the envelope containing those documents had “grease stains” the 

Defendants believed to be contraband. (Doc. 8 at 10.) Thereafter, the stains tested positive for 

indole-based cannabinoids, and Plaintiff was charged in state court with introducing a prohibited 

item into a correctional facility, which is a class C felony. See State v. Rogers, CR-2024-038 

(Greene County Circuit Court). That criminal charge is still pending. Id. 

The State of Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Plaintiff 

may raise his constitutional claims regarding the legality of the search and seizure during his state 

proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. 

Selig, 664 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, Plaintiff has not raised facts suggesting bad 

Case 3:24-cv-00028-DPM-JJV Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

faith, harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention 

inappropriate. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 435 

(1982). Thus, Younger abstention applies. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, and he does not 

challenge the constitutionality of any state statutes. Thus, his constitutional claims arising from 

the January 2024 search and seizure should be stayed until the criminal charges, including any 

appeals, are resolved in state court. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 603-604 (8th 

Cir. 1999). 

The remainder of the Second Amended Complaint contains a variety of factually and 

legally unrelated constitutional claims against multiple Defendants at the GCDF. Those claims 

are not properly joined with the constitutional claims stemming from the January 13, 2024 search 

and seizure. And there is no need to stay their resolution. Accordingly, I recommend the 

improperly joined claims be dismissed without prejudice so Plaintiff may, if he so chooses, 

immediately pursue them in a separately filed federal lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 & 21; 

Stephens v. Does, 777 F. Appx. 176, 177 (8th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019); Bailey v. Doe; Case No. 11-

2410, 2011 WL 5061542 (8th Cir. Oct. 26, 2011). 

 III. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 1. Plaintiff’s constitutional challenges against Defendants Hughes and Huffsettler 

stemming from the January 13, 2024 search and seizure be STAYED and this case be 

ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINIATED until State v. Antony D. Rogers, CR-2024-038 (Green 

County Circuit Court), including any appeal, is resolved in state court. 

 2. All other claims and Defendants be DISMISSED as improperly joined. 

Case 3:24-cv-00028-DPM-JJV Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

 3. The Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion to Reopen this case after 

his state criminal proceeding are concluded.

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

appeal from an Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 29th day of May 2024. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00028-DPM-JJV Document 9 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 4