Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00042/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00042-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

JIMMY JAMES PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-42-KGB-BD

POTTER, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections: 

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Mr. James may file written objections if he disagrees with the findings 

or conclusions in the Recommendation. To be considered, objections must be filed with 

the Court Clerk within 14 days. Objections should be specific and should include the 

factual or legal basis for the objection. 

If Mr. James does not file objections, he risks waiving the right to appeal questions 

of fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation 

without independently reviewing the record. 

II. Discussion:

The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief 

against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Courts must 

dismiss complaints that fail to state a claim for relief prior to service of process. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In screening a complaint, courts generally assume that the factual 

Case 3:19-cv-00042-KGB Document 7 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 3
2

allegations in the complaint are true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); 

Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

Mr. James is detained in the Craighead County Detention Facility. He alleges that 

Defendants, all officers at the Detention Facility, placed him in “lock down” for nine 

days as punishment for possessing a tobacco cigarette. (#1) Mr. James admits he had the

cigarette, but he argues that he should not have been punished because Detention Facility 

employees and inmates who work at the Detention Facility are allowed to use smokeless 

tobacco and smoke cigarettes, on spite of the Detention Facility’s “smoke-free” policy. 

(#1)

Even if all of his allegations are true, Mr. James has not stated a federal claim for 

relief. He has not alleged that he was treated differently from others because he is 

member of a protected class. To state a claim for violation of his right to equal protection 

of the law given these facts, Mr. James would have to allege that he was intentionally 

treated differently from similarly situated detainees without a rational reason. Nolan v. 

Thompson, 521 F.3d 983, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2008). Mr. James is at the Detention Facility 

for very different reasons from the reason employees and other workers are there. 

Mr. James has not stated facts indicating unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement at the Detention Facility. There is no federally protected right to access 

tobacco while detained. Furthermore, his brief (nine-day) assignment to lock-down is not 

the type of harsh punishment that triggers the protection of the Due Process Clause. 

Case 3:19-cv-00042-KGB Document 7 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 3
3

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. James’s lawsuit be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, for failure to state a federal claim for relief.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2019. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00042-KGB Document 7 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 3