Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00388/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

RICKIE EARN BERNA 

ADC #80609 PLAINTIFF

VS. 5:04CV00388 GH/JTR

MS. ROBINSON, Maximum Security Unit,

Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

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

Howard, Jr. 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 eleven (11) 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 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 proffered at the hearing before the District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 11
1

 On July 28, 2005, Judge Howard referred all of the above-listed Motions, which are

pending in this “550" action, to this Court “for either disposition or recommended disposition as

each warrants.” See docket entry #36. 

-2-

(if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before

the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing

before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy,

or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence

desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the 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 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

I. Introduction

On October 26, 2004, Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Maximum Security Unit

(“MSU”) of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), commenced this pro se § 1983 action

against Defendants. See docket entry #1. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss and a

Supporting Brief, to which Plaintiff has filed a Response. See docket entries #30, #31, and #33. For

the reasons set forth herein, the Court recommends that the Motion be granted and that this § 1983

action be dismissed, with prejudice. Additionally, the Court further recommends that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Rule to Name Additional Defendants (docket entry #34), and Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Sanctions (docket entry #35) be denied, as moot.1

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 11
-3-

II. Background

In May of 1983, Plaintiff was convicted of one count of rape, three counts of kidnapping, and

one count of aggravated robbery. See Berna v. State, 670 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Ark. 1984). For those

crimes, he was sentenced to life plus eighty years in state prison. Id. Plaintiff’s convictions and

sentences were subsequently affirmed on appeal. Id. 

On January 22, 2004, Plaintiff prepared a clemency application, which was denied by the

Governor on June 22, 2004. See docket entry #1. In the Governor’s letter to Plaintiff denying his

request for clemency, the Governor stated the following: 

I have reviewed your application for executive clemency, specifically, a

commutation, from the Post Prison Transfer Board. After careful consideration of the

information in your file, including but not limited to the recommendation of the Post

Prison Transfer Board, advice and input from local law enforcement, prosecutors and

the victim or the victim’s family, if applicable, your application must be denied. 

See docket entry #1 at 16. Additionally, on August 6, 2004, the Post Prison Transfer Board

(“PPTB”) sent Plaintiff a “Record of Release Consideration,” which states:

The action of the board and the most significant reasons for that action are

recorded below. For a more complete explanation, contact the Institutional Parole

Officer. After due deliberation, the Board ordered the following action:

ACTION: Governor Denied Exec. Clemency

REASONS FOR ACTION: None

PRERELEASE CONDITIONS: None

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE: None

BOARD IMPOSED DATE: [left blank]

COMMENTS: None

Id. at 15.

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 11
2

 Plaintiff apparently believes that the Parole Board and the PPTB are separate entities. As

explained in the commentary to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-202, the history of that single entity is as

follows: (1) in 1989 the General Assembly created the State Board of Parole and Community

Rehabilitation,” otherwise known as the “Parole Board,” see Acts 1989, No. 937; (2) in 1993, the

General Assembly changed the name of that entity to the “Post Prison Transfer Board,” see Acts

1993, Nos. 530 and 547; and (3) in 2005, which was after Plaintiff applied for clemency, the name

was changed to “Parole Board,” see Acts 2005, No. 1033. 

3

 Although Plaintiff mentioned the ADC in the text of his Complaint, he did not list that

entity in section I, B of the Complaint form that requires the prisoner to list the Defendants named

in the action. See docket entry #1, at 1 through 2. However, for the purpose of this Recommended

-4-

In his Complaint (docket entry #1), Plaintiff makes the following claims against the various

Defendants: 

(1) Defendant Robinson, (the MSU Institutional Parole Officer) and three

unknown members of the Parole Board did not: (a) investigate his

clemency application and interview inmates, as required by Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-93-703; and (b) investigate and transfer that

application to the PPTB,2

 as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-

204;

(2) Defendants Leroy Brownlee, John Felts, John Belken, Erma Fingers

Hendrix, Carolyn Robinson, Larry Zeno, and William Walker, Jr. (all

of whom are members of the PPTB), did not properly investigate his

clemency application, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-204; 

(3) Defendant Governor Mike Huckabee denied his clemency application

without reviewing a PPTB recommendation and investigation, as

required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-204; 

(4) The Arkansas Department of Correction3

 has improperly classified

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 11
Disposition, the Court will assume that Plaintiff has properly named the ADC as a Defendant.

4

 Specifically, Plaintiff refers to “each of the wardens at each [ADC] unit and . . . Sharon

Draper.” See docket entry #1 at 7-8.

-5-

him as ineligible for parole; 

(5) Defendants Robinson, the unknown members of the Parole Board,

Norris, and other individuals who have not been named as Defendants

in this action4 have improperly granted parole to ineligible inmates;

and

(6) Defendant Norris, and other individuals who have not been named as

Defendants in this action, have violated Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-208

by maintaining a parole board at each unit.

By way of relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an injunction requiring the Defendants to

properly process his clemency application, award monetary damages, and order that criminal charges

be filed against Defendants. Id.

III. Discussion

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants assert that this case should be dismissed, with

prejudice, because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See docket

entries #30 and #31. This argument will be addressed as to each of the claims Plaintiff has raised

in this action.

A. Claims 1, 2, and 3 – Failure to Comply with Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-93-703 and 204

First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Robinson and the Parole Board did not investigate his

clemency application and conduct inmate interviews as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-703.

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 11
5

 Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-204, which is a lengthy statute that need not be quoted,

sets forth certain procedures that must be followed when processing an inmate’s clemency

application. Although inmates do not have a substantive due process right to challenge the outcome

of the Governor’s clemency decision, they do have a procedural due process right to ensure that the

procedures for processing a clemency application are correctly followed. Compare Noel v. Norris,

336 F.3d 648, 649 (8th Cir. 2003) (allowing an inmate to file a § 1983 action challenging the

defendant’s refusal to give him a brain-scan and provide him with sufficient time to prepare for a

clemency hearing), with Roll v. Carnahan, 225 F.3d 1016, 1017 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that two

inmates failed to state a viable § 1983 claim when they asserted that a pending election prevented

the Governor from objectively evaluating their clemency applications). 

-6-

See docket entry #1 at 4-5 and 8-11. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-703 provides that:

(a) The Board of Pardons and Paroles shall not schedule parole hearings at which

victims or relatives of victims of crime are invited to appear at a facility wherein

inmates are housed other than the Central Administration Building of the Department

of Correction at Pine Bluff.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the Board of Pardons

and Paroles from conducting parole hearings in two (2) sessions, one (1) at the place

of the inmate's incarceration for interviews with the inmate, the inmate's witnesses,

and correctional personnel, and the second session for victims and relatives of

victims as set out in subsection (a) of this section.

(Emphasis added.) The plain language of this statute unequivocally states that it applies to “parole

hearings,” and not clemency applications, as asserted by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief based upon the Defendants’ alleged violation of Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-93-703.

Plaintiff also alleges that various Defendants denied him due process when they failed to

process his clemency application as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-204.5 See docket entry #1

at 4-5 and 8-11. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Defendant Robinson did not forward his

application to the PPTB; (2) the PPTB did not investigate his application, interview Plaintiff and

others who were involved in the state court trial, conduct a hearing, or issue a recommendation to

the Governor; and (3) the Governor did not review a PPTB recommendation prior to making his

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 6 of 11
6

 Ark Code Ann. § 16-93-204(a)(1)(A) simply states that the PPTB shall conduct an

“investigation,” without specifying what must be included in that investigation. Subsection (c)(1)

provides that the PPTB “shall have the power” to subpoena witnesses to appear before a hearing, but

it does not require that a hearing be held or specify any witness that must be interviewed. Similarly,

subsection (d)(1) states that the PPTB shall “solicit the written and oral recommendations of the

-7-

decision to deny Plaintiff clemency. 

In his Reply to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff admits that he bases these allegations solely

on the content of the PPTB’s August 6, 2004 Record of Release Considerations, which does not

specify what the PPTB’s recommendation was and, instead, merely states that the Governor denied

Plaintiff’s clemency application. See docket entry #33. In other words, Plaintiff speculates that the

PPTB could not have conducted an investigation and made a recommendation to the Governor

because neither is mentioned in the August 6, 2004 document. Suffice it to say, there is nothing in

the August 6, 2004 document to support a reasonable presumption or inference that the PPTB failed

to conduct an investigation into Plaintiff’s application for clemency or forward a clemency

recommendation to the Governor. This conclusion is strongly supported by the statement in the

August 6, 2004 document that Plaintiff can contact his Institutional Parole Officer for “a more

complete explanation” as to why his clemency application was denied. See docket entry #1 at 15.

More importantly, the Governor’s June 22, 2004 letter, which Plaintiff attached to his

Complaint, unequivocally refutes Plaintiff’s mistaken beliefs as to how his clemency application was

processed. See docket entry #1 at 16. Specifically, the letter states that Plaintiff’s application was

forwarded to the PPTB, which received recommendations from various individuals involved in the

state trial and then made a recommendation to the Governor. Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s

assertion, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-204 does not require the PPTB to interview the applying prisoner

or to conduct a hearing.6

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has also failed to state a

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 7 of 11
committing court, the prosecuting attorney, the sheriff,” and, under certain circumstances, the victim

and his or her next of kin. However, that subsection does not require that: (1) those individuals

respond to the solicitation; (2) the applying inmate be interviewed; or (3) a hearing be held. Finally,

subsection (d)(5)(A) provides that a victim and his or her next of kin must be notified “[i]f a hearing

will be held on the application” – but it does not require the PPTB to hold such a hearing. 

-8-

claim for relief based upon the Defendants’ alleged violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-204.

B. Claim 4 – Parole Eligibility 

Plaintiff contends that the ADC is incorrectly determining his parole eligibility date. See

docket entry #1 at 5-6. The Court concludes that this allegation fails to state a viable § 1983 claim

for two reasons. 

First, it is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars a plaintiff from naming a state or

a state entity, such as a department of correction, as a defendant in a § 1983 action. See Brown v.

Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 353 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that department of corrections

is not a “not a proper party under section 1983"); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir.

1997) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against the state and its agencies);

Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 540 (8th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a state agency is entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity because – unlike state employees – a “state agency which is the sole

creation of the state has no separate identity, and thus cannot be stripped of its official character”).

Second, even if the Court were to assume that Plaintiff has named a proper defendant in

regard to this claim, it is well settled that parole challenges, which potentially affect the length of a

prisoner’s sentence, can only be raised in a federal habeas action, after the prisoner has fully and

completely exhausted all available remedies in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A) (stating

that a federal court shall not grant writ of habeas corpus unless applicant has exhausted remedies

available in state court system); Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 8 of 11
-9-

that a court must look to substance of relief sought to determine if action is § 1983 suit or habeas

corpus action; prisoner's labeling of the suit is not controlling); Wilson v. Lockhart, 949 F.2d 1051,

1051-52 (8th Cir.1991) (holding that a challenge which would result, if successful, only in earlier

eligibility for parole and not necessarily earlier release, should nonetheless be brought as habeas

petition). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a viable § 1983 claim

in regard to his parole eligibility.

C. Claim 5 – Improper Grant of Parole to Other Inmates

Plaintiff alleges that various Defendants have granted parole to other inmates who do not,

under Arkansas law, qualify for such release. See docket entry #1 at 7-8 and 11. Plaintiff further

contends that by improperly granting parole to those inmates, Defendants have been accomplices to

their “escapes” and, thus, criminal charges should be brought against them.

All federal litigants, including prisoners seeking relief under § 1983, must satisfy basic

constitutional standing requirements. Smith v. Arkansas Dep’t. of Corr., 103 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir.

1996); see also Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1301 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining that: “The

standing requirement is, as its core, a constitutionally mandated prerequisite for federal jurisdiction,

and an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III”). In

United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742-743 (1995), the Supreme Court set forth the elements of

constitutional standing as follows:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally

protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent,

not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between

the injury and the conduct complained of . . . . Third, it must be likely, as opposed

to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. 

Plaintiff has not explained how he was personally “injured in fact” by Defendants’ allegedly

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 9 of 11
7

Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-208 provides that: “The Department of Correction and

the Department of Community Correction may provide services, furnishings, equipment, and office

space to assist the Post Prison Transfer Board in fulfilling the purposes for which the board was

created by law.” 

8

 As previously explained in this Recommendation, the Arkansas statutes provide for a single

parole entity, which has been called by various names since its creation.

-10-

improper decisions to grant parole to other inmates. Thus, the Court concludes that these allegations

fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

D. Claim 6 – Parole Board at Each Unit

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that various Defendants have violated Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-2087

by maintaining a “parole board” at each prison unit. See docket entry #1 at 7. The Court seriously

questions whether, in fact, this allegation is true.8 However, even if it were true, Plaintiff does not

have standing to raise such a challenge because he has not demonstrated how he was “injured in fact”

by the alleged maintenance of a “parole board” at each prison unit. Accordingly, the Court also

concludes that these allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #30) be GRANTED and that the

Complaint (docket entry #1) be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule to Name Additional Defendants (docket entry #34) and

Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (docket entry #35) be DENIED, AS MOOT.

3. Dismissal of this action CONSTITUTE a “strike,” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 10 of 11
9

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or

appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court

of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.”

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if

the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”

-11-

for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.9

4. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),10 that an in forma pauperis

appeal from any Order and Judgment adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken

in good faith

Dated this 29th day of September, 2005. 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00388-GH Document 44 Filed 09/29/05 Page 11 of 11