Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00044/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00044-0/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 

DEMARIO DAVIS PLAINTIFF 

v. 3:20CV00044-LPR-JTK 

MARTY BOYD, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

P. Rudofsky. 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 Court 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 District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include 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 (if such a 

Hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

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

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

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 AStatement of Necessity@ to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

 DISPOSITION 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Demario Davis filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action while incarcerated at the 

Craighead County Detention Center (Jail), alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement 

(Doc. No. 2). By Order dated February 6, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff=s Motion to Proceed 

in forma pauperis and directed him to submit an Amended Complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 

No. 3) As of this date, Plaintiff has not submitted an Amended Complaint, and mail sent to him 

was returned undeliverable on February 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 5) 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds it should be dismissed, for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

II. Screening

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts to screen prisoner 

complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). 

An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing 

pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 

780 F .2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of 

the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 

(1992). 

Additionally, to survive a court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) 

screening, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability 

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 

Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops 

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. 

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

III. Facts and Analysis 

To support a claim for relief against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff 

must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived him of some Constitutional 

right. Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al., 835 F.Supp. 1114, 1118 (E.D.MO 

1993). Plaintiff complained about several improper conditions of confinement in his Complaint 

but did not include any specific facts/allegations involving the two named Defendants. (Doc. No. 

2) The Court noted this in the February 6, 2020 Order directing him to amend and specified what 

facts/allegations should be included in an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 3, pp. 3-4) 

Since Plaintiff stated in his Complaint that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of his 

incarceration, the due process standard of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to determine the 

constitutionality of his conditions of confinement. “Under the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial 

detainees are entitled to ‘at least as great’ protection as that afforded convicted prisoners under the 

Eighth Amendment.” Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting City of 

Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983)). “[I]nmates are entitled to reasonably 

adequate sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges, particularly over a lengthy course 

of time.” Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Conditions which “deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” 

may be considered cruel and unusual, and therefore, unconstitutional. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). In determining when pretrial detention is considered unconstitutionally 

punitive, the courts apply the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard, focusing on the 

length of exposure to unsanitary conditions and the degree to which the conditions are unsanitary. 

Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994). “Conditions of confinement, 

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

however, constitute cruel and unusual punishment ‘only when they have a mutually enforcing 

effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or 

exercise.’” Id., (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991)). 

“Although the Eighth Amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bars 

more than physical torture, ‘discomfort compelled by conditions of confinement, without more, 

does not violate the amendment.’” Martin v. Byrd, No. 4:07cv01184SWW, 2008 WL 686936 * 4 

(E.D.Ark.2008) (quoting Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783, 787 (2d Cir. 1984) (other citations 

omitted.)) 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege anything more than discomfort, and did not 

specify the length of time involved, what actions the individual Defendants took to deprive him of 

his rights, or how he was personally harmed. In addition, he did not allege the “deprivation of a 

single, identifiable human need.” Whitnack, 16 F.3d at 957 (other citations omitted). 

Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to submit an Amended Complaint to clarify his 

allegations against Defendants, the Court finds the Complaint should be dismissed, for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice, for 

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

2. Dismissal of this action constitute a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

 1

The statute provides that a prisoner may not file an in forma pauperis civil rights action 

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and 

Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 2020. 

_________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

or appeal if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an action or appeal that was 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Case 3:20-cv-00044-LPR Document 8 Filed 03/09/20 Page 6 of 6