Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_19-cv-06126/USCOURTS-arwd-6_19-cv-06126-1/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

TYLER KLINGENSMITH PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL NO. 6:19-CV-06126

INTERNAL PAROLE OFFICER “JANE”

TAYLOR (Parole Officer); DAWN 

VANDIVER (Parole Board Secretary); DR. 

SELLS (Unit Psychologist, Ouachita River

Correctional Unit “ORCU”); DONNA

DYCUS (ORCU Unit Coordinator);

CLAYTON DEBOER (ORCU Mental health

Case Manager); MRS. HAMER (ORCU 

Mental Health Supervisor); OFFICER

BLEADSOE (ORCU); RORY GRIFFIN

(Director of Health and Correctional

Services); WARDEN G. EARL (ORCU); 

PAROLE OFFICER WEST; JENNINGS 

(a/k/a Jenkins); MRS. FULLER; MAJOR

CHRISTOPHER (ORCU/ADC); MRS.

HOSSMAN; LT. DELANEY (ADC 

Security/ORCU); ASSIST. WARDEN BALL

(ORCU); DEXTER PAYNE (ADC Director);

MARK JORDAN (Bentonville PD

Detective); LT. HUNTER (ADC 

Security/ORCU), and CUMMINGS (ORCU) DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court has received a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) from United States 

Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. Plaintiff proceeds in this 42 U.S.C. §1983 action pro se and in 

forma pauperis. Upon review, the Magistrate recommended that all Plaintiff’s official capacity 

claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further recommended that the following 

personal capacity claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

• Claims against Defendants Deboer, Dycas, Hamer, Fuller, Bleadsoe, Payne, 

Case 6:19-cv-06126-RTD Document 18 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Griffin, Hossman, and Seller for his misclassification, Unit transfer, or housing 

assignment;

• Claims against Defendants Taylor, West, Cummings, Jennings, and Jordan in 

relation to Plaintiff’s parole hearing or parole denial;

• The claim that Delaney and Hunter placed him in administrative segregation 

without adequate due process;

• Claims against Defendants Delaney and Hunter concerning the lack of water in 

his segregation cell; and

• Claims for First Amendment retaliation against Delaney and Hunter for placing 

him in administrative segregation because he filed lawsuits against the ADC.

Finally, the Magistrate recommended that the following personal capacity claims remain 

for further consideration: 

• The conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Delaney and Hunter

regarding the temperature in his segregation cell, the lack of warm clothing, and the 

lights being kept on around the clock;

• The First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Hossman, Delaney, 

Christopher, Mendoza, Whitley and Deboer; and

• The Failure to protect claims against Defendants Christopher, Earl, Ball, 

Hossman, and Hamer.

Plaintiff has filed written Objections (ECF No. 16) to the Report and Recommendation. 

The matter is now ripe for consideration.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to 

which Plaintiff has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact 

Case 6:19-cv-06126-RTD Document 18 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
3

requiring departure from the Magistrate’s findings. The report and recommendation is proper, contains 

no clear error, and is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Wherefore, the Court makes its ORDER as follows:

1. All Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. The following personal capacity claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE: 

• Claims for misclassification, Unit transfer, or housing assignment against Separate 

Defendants Deboer, Dycas, Hamer, Fuller, Bleadsoe, Payne Griffin, Hossman, 

and Seller;

• Claims of retaliation in Plaintiff’s parole hearing or parole denial against Separate 

Defendants Taylor, West, Cummings, Jennings, and Jordan;

• Claims of due process violations with regard to administrative segregation against 

Separate Defendants Delaney and Hunter;

• Claims concerning lack of water in his segregation cell against Separate 

Defendants Delaney and Hunter;

• Claim(s) of First Amendment retaliation for placing Plaintiff in administrative 

segregation because he filed lawsuits against the ADC against Separate 

Defendants Delaney and Hunter.

3. The following personal capacity claims shall remain with the Court for further consideration:

• Claims regarding conditions of confinement in Plaintiff’s segregation cell, including the 

temperature, the lack of warm clothing, and the lights being kept on around the clock, 

against Separate Defendants Delaney and Hunter;

• Claims for First Amendment retaliation against Separate Defendants Hossman, Delaney, 

Christopher, Mendoza, Whitley and Deboer; and

Case 6:19-cv-06126-RTD Document 18 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
4

• The failure to protect claim(s) against Christopher, Earl, Ball, Hossman, and Hamer.

 

SO ORDERED this 26th day of May 2020.

/s/Robert T. Dawson

ROBERT T. DAWSON

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:19-cv-06126-RTD Document 18 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>