Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05148/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ANTOINE DAVIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5148

DR. HOWARD; NURSE

SHIRLEY MOSS; MS.

SUSAN CURE; MS. 

BECKY; MS. CARLA; 

NURSE RHONDA; and 

NURSE SUSAN DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Antoine Davis, a former inmate of the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC),

brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint was filed in

forma pauperis (IFP) and it is now determined whether it should be served upon the defendants.

Because the court believed additional information was needed about the plaintiff’s

claims, the plaintiff was directed to file an addendum to his complaint. The addendum was filed

on February 1, 2006 (Doc. 10).

Background

While he was detained at the WCDC, Davis alleges his rights were violated on June 13,

2006, June 23, 2006, and July 10, 2006, when money was deducted from his inmate account to

pay for medical expenses. He also alleges that he was denied proper medical attention.

Davis was seen by medical personnel on or about June 6, 2006, so that he could obtain

his blood pressure medication. Addendum at ¶ 1 & ¶ 2. Davis was seen again by the doctor and

nurse prior to July 10, 2006, because he was having chest pains and pain on his left side

Case 5:06-cv-05148-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

including his shoulder. Id. at ¶ 3. Davis maintains he should have only been charged for one

doctor’s visit, one nurse’s visit, and one over-the-counter medication. Id. Instead, he states he

was charged for three nurse’s visits, one over-the-counter medication, and one doctor’s visit. Id.

On June 13, 2006, $30.00 was deducted from his inmate account. Complaint at page 4.

On June 23, 2006, $12.24 was deducted from his account. Id. On July 10, 2006, $9.00 was

taken from his account. Id. Davis maintains the deductions were for medical debts he did not

owe. Id. 

Davis was told by Nurse Shirley that the charges were likely made by the commissary.

He spoke with Ms. Cure and a man for Aramark and put in several grievances but never heard

anything back. Addendum at ¶ 4. Davis then spoke with several detention center officials about

the deductions but was told they had no control over anything Aramark’s people did. Id. 

Davis contends Ms. Cure, Ms. Beck and Ms. Carla are the ones who wrongfully took his

money. Addendum at ¶ 12. He asserts that Nurse Susan, Nurse Rhonda, or Nurse Shirley

overcharged him. Id. Finally, Davis contends Dr. Howard and Nurse Shirley would not provide

him with adequate medical treatment. Id. 

Discussion

Several of Davis’ claims are subject to dismissal. First, Davis’ claims with respect to the

deductions from his inmate account are subject to dismissal. This is true whether those

deductions were the result of medical charges or charges for commissary. 

While the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

requires jails to provide basic medical care to inmates, there is no requirement that the jails

provide the medical care free of cost. See e.g., Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 173-74 (3rd

Case 5:06-cv-05148-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Cir. 1997)(deliberate-indifference standard does not guarantee prisoners right to be entirely free

from cost considerations that figure in medical-care decisions made by most non-prisoners in

society). Inmates may be constitutionally required to pay for their own medical expenses, if they

can afford to do so. Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 1999). See also Jensen v.

Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1183 (8th Cir. 1981)(no basis for due process claim where deductions

from prisoner accounts were assessments for value received).

Davis has not alleged that he was unable to obtain necessary medical care because of the

requirement that he bear the cost, or some portion of the cost, of the care. Davis does not

contend the deductions resulted in his not being able to obtain necessary items such as hygiene

items. 

Even if the deductions from Davis’ account could be said to be improper, no claim of

constitutional dimension is stated. While an inmate does have a protected property interest in

the funds in his prison account, not every deduction made violates the Due Process Clause of the

United States Constitution. See Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996); Jensen v.

Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1183 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding that inmates have a property interest in

their money); Sell v. Parratt, 548 F.2d 753, 757 (8th Cir. 1977) (same); Robinson v. Fauver , 932

F. Supp. 639, 645 (D.N.J. 1996); Johnson v. Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Services,

885 F. Supp. 817, 821 (D. Md. 1995)(due process is not violated when deductions are made from

an inmate's account "quite simply because they have purchased something on their own

initiative."); Scott v. Angelone, 771 F. Supp. 1064, 1067-68 (D. Nev. 1991) (inmate not denied

due process of law when account charged for medical visits where inmate had prior notice of

policy). 

Case 5:06-cv-05148-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

The United States Supreme Court has held that neither the negligent nor intentional

random or unauthorized deprivations of property under color of state law are actionable where

a plaintiff has an adequate state post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533,

104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541, 101 S. Ct. 1908,

68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.

1994)(negligent orintentional deprivation of prisoner's property fails to state claim under § 1983

if state has adequate post-deprivation remedy). Arkansas law recognizes a cause of action for

conversion when property is wrongfully taken from its owner. Elliot v. Hurst, 307 Ark. 134,

817 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1991)(cause of action for conversion lies where distinct act of dominion

is exerted over property in denial of owner's right). The deductions from Davis’ inmate account

simply do not rise to a claim of constitutional dimension. For the same reasons, Davis’ claims

that Nurse Susan, Nurse Rhonda, or Nurse Shirley overcharged him are subject to dismissal.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, I recommend that Davis’ claims stemming from the deductions

from his inmate account and the alleged overcharging for medical care be dismissed. As a result,

all claims against the following individuals would be dismissed: (1) Ms. Susan Cure; (2) Ms.

Becky; (3) Ms. Carla; (4) Nurse Rhonda; and (5) Nurse Susan. 

This leaves for later determination Davis’ claim that he was denied adequate medical care

by Dr. Howard and Nurse Shirley Moss. By separate order the undersigned has directed service

on Dr. Howard and Nurse Moss.

Case 5:06-cv-05148-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

The plaintiff has ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The plaintiff is

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 7th day of March 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05148-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/07/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>