Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-01050/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-01050-0/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

CENTRAL DIVISION

JEFFERY S. COWGILL PLAINTIFF

ADC #145476 

v. 4:24-cv-01050-BRW-JJV

ROBERT PIERCE, 

Deputy Warden, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

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

States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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. DISCUSSION

Jeffery S. Cowgill (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Division 

of Correction who has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

2.) The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking 

relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A. The court must 

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 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. Id. When conducting this review, the court 

construes pro se pleadings liberally. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). But 

Case 4:24-cv-01050-BRW Document 4 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 4
2

“labels and conclusions,” “formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked 

assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint must provide “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 

Plaintiff says that, on September 7, 2024, inmate Eason verbally assaulted him, by using 

“antisemitic slurs,” as Plaintiff was returning from “insulin call.” (Doc. 2 at 5-6.) Plaintiff believes 

the verbal assault would not have occurred if: (1) Defendants Pierce, Young, and Magee had 

conducted insulin call on time, instead of an hour and a half late; and (2) Defendant Glasper had 

properly secured the door to 11B barracks. (Id.) And Plaintiff says that, after the incident, 

Defendant Johnson wrongfully failed to issue disciplinary charges against Eason because the 

attack was verbal, rather than physical, even though verbal assaults are a violation of ADC rules. 

(Id.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants in their personal capacities. 

After careful consideration, I conclude Plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible claim for relief for 

the following reasons. 

Although prison officials have an Eighth Amendment obligation to “take reasonable 

measures to guarantee inmate safety,” they are not liable “every time one inmate attacks another.” 

Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2018); Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 

2007). Thus, to plead a plausible failure to protect claim, a complaint must contain facts 

suggesting: (1) objectively, there was a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) subjectively, each 

of the defendants knew of, but deliberately disregarded, that substantial risk of serious harm. See

Axelson v. Watson, 999 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir. 2021); Blair v. Bowersox, 929 F.3d 981, 987 (8th 

Cir. 2019). Plaintiff’s allegation that Eason verbally assaulted him, on one occasion, by using 

racial hostile language, while certainly offensive, does not rise to the level of an objectively serious 

Case 4:24-cv-01050-BRW Document 4 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 4
3

risk of harm. See Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1047 (8th Cir. 2010) (no objectively serious 

harm when a prison was “yelled at” and “pushed” by another prisoner); Glaze v. Byrd, 721 F.3d 

528, 531 (8th Cir. 2013) (“threats between inmates are common”); Patterson, 902 F.3d at 845 (no 

§ 1983 liability for failing to prevent a surprise attack). Similarly, Plaintiff’s assertion that the 

incident occurred because Defendants failed to timely conduct insulin call and properly secure the 

door amount to negligence, or at most gross negligence, which falls short of deliberate 

indifference. See Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003) (negligence, and even 

gross negligence, are insufficient to establish a failure to protect claim); Vandevender v. Sass, 970 

F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2020) (to constitute deliberate indifference, “the official must both be aware 

of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and 

he must also draw the inference”). Finally, Plaintiff’s request for damages fails because he does 

not say he suffered any injuries. Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008) (because “a 

§ 1983 action is a type of tort claim, general principles of tort law require that a plaintiff suffer 

some actual injury before he can receive compensation”). For these reasons, I conclude Plaintiff 

has not pled a plausible failure to protect claim. 

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff may be trying to raise a constitutional claim against 

Defendant Johnson for failing to bring disciplinary charges against Eason, it is well settled that 

prisoners do not have a due process right to enforce compliance within internal prison rules and 

policies. See Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 

427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, I also conclude Plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible due 

process claim.

II. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that; 

Case 4:24-cv-01050-BRW Document 4 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 4
4

1. The Complaint (Doc. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. The Court recommend dismissal count as a strike, in the future, for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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

appeal from an Order adopting this Recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not 

be taken in good faith.

DATED this 9th day of December 2024. 

______________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-01050-BRW Document 4 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 4