Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00057/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00057-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

SIMON ERIC REED PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 4:18-CV-57-DPM-BD 

FAULKNER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections 

This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge D.P. 

Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file 

objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your 

objection. 

Your objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days 

of the date this Recommendation is filed. If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall can 

adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not 

objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion 

A. Background 

Simon Eric Reed, a pre-trial detainee at the Faulkner County Detention Center 

(“Detention Center”), filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. (Docket entry #2) Because Mr. Reed’s original complaint was flawed, he was 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 6
2 

given an opportunity to amend his complaint to remedy the defects identified by the 

Court. (#5) Mr. Reed has now filed his amended complaint. (#8) 

B. Analysis 

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

prisoner complaints that seek relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee 

before ordering service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss claims 

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

granted; or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of 

the factual allegations set out in the complaint, and it may consider the documents 

attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. 

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

 1. Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office and Faulkner County Detention Center 

 In his original complaint, Mr. Reed named the Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office 

and the Faulkner County Detention Center as Defendants. As previously explained to Mr. 

Reed, these Defendants are not entities that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, 

e.g., Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (police 

department is not an entity “suable as such”); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th 

Cir. 1992) (“Sheriff’s departments and police departments are not usually considered 

legal entities subject to suit” under § 1983); Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th 

Cir. 1985) (the police department is not a separate suable entity); and Owens v. Scott 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 6
3 

County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (“jails are not legal entities amenable to 

suit”). 

 2. Defendants Ferguson and Fletcher 

In his motion for the Court to accept the amendments to his complaint (#9), Mr. 

Reed asks to dismiss claims against Defendants Ferguson and Fletcher. Thus, Mr. Reed’s 

claims against those Defendants should be dismissed, without prejudice. 

 3. Abstention 

In his original and amended complaints, Mr. Reed claims that officers who 

arrested him in November 2017, violated his fourth amendment rights by arresting him 

following a traffic stop. He further claims that he was denied a lawyer for thirty-three 

days, in violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel; that he was denied a 

“reasonable cause hearing” in his state court criminal case; that he was charged by felony 

information rather by indictment, in violation of his due process rights; and that he has 

not been afforded a bond hearing or a suppression hearing in his state-court criminal case. 

The Court has reviewed Mr. Reed’s state-court criminal case, State v. Reed, 

Faulkner County Circuit Court Case No. 23CR-17-1194.1

 The docket sheet in that case 

indicates that, on November 15, 2017, Mr. Reed was arrested following a traffic stop. On 

November 17, by felony information, Mr. Reed was charged with possession of 

methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On the same date, Mr. Reed was 

brought before the Faulkner County Circuit Court for an initial appearance. At that 

 

1

 The Court accessed the docket sheet for Mr. Reed’s state-court criminal case using the 

public website https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov. 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 6
4 

hearing, the circuit court approved the appointment of a public defender for Mr. Reed and 

set his bond at $5,000. His arraignment was scheduled for December 18. 

During his formal arraignment on December 18, 2017, Mr. Reed asked to 

represent himself. On that date, Mr. Reed moved for his bond to be set aside or vacated, 

and requested that the court hear his motion to suppress the State’s evidence prior to his 

scheduled pre-trial hearing. Since that date, Mr. Reed has filed multiple motions in his 

state criminal case, including motions to dismiss and motions for speedy trial. A pre-trial 

hearing in that case is scheduled for April 3, 2018. 

It is undisputed that Mr. Reed is in jail awaiting trial on state criminal charges. 

This Court should abstain from proceeding with Mr. Reed’s federal civil rights case 

because the criminal case is ongoing, Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its 

criminal laws, and Mr. Reed will have an opportunity to raise constitutional claims 

during his state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). 

Although Mr. Reed alleges that the State of Arkansas is deliberately “drag[ing] its 

feet to dismiss charges on him,” there is no indication of bad faith, harassment, or any 

other extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Tony Alamo 

Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1254 (8th Cir. 2012). Under settled law, this 

case should be stayed until after final disposition of Mr. Reed’s state-court criminal case, 

including any appeal. At that time, Mr. Reed would be free to ask the Court to re-open 

this lawsuit. 

 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 6
5 

 4. Access-to-courts Claim 

In his original and amended complaints, Mr. Reed also complains that he has been 

denied access to law books and case law; that Defendant Andrews instructed Defendant 

Page to stop printing case law for Mr. Reed; that he had to re-write several pages of his 

amended complaint after unknown Detention Center officers lost them; that he has been 

denied “meaningful access to legal materials and research ability”; and that he was 

denied extra stationary to use for legal work. (#8 at pp.9, 11, 12, 13) 

The First Amendment unquestionably protects an inmate’s right to access to the 

courts. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 489-90 (1969). To prevail on a claim for 

interference with access, however, Mr. Reed must demonstrate that he was “actually 

injured” in regard to a “nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious underlying legal claim.” 

White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007). Here, Mr. Reed has failed to allege 

that he has suffered any such injury. 

5. Condition-of-confinement Claims 

In addition, in his original and amended complaint, Mr. Reed complains that: the 

Detention Center lacks remote controls to operate the television; the Detention Center 

commissary does not offer specific items, such as cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, hot 

chocolate, and coffee; Defendant Andrews had him handcuffed behind his back to 

receive a “talking to” by Officer Brawley; and he had to trade commissary food items for 

pencils, papers, and extra envelopes. Unfortunately for Mr. Reed, these allegations, even 

if true, do not rise to a constitutional level. 

 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 6
6 

Finally, in his original complaint, Mr. Reed also complains generally about the 

cost of the telephone system, black mold in the showers, overcrowding, and the 

restrictions imposed by the Detention Center mail policy. Mr. Reed, however, fails to 

allege any constitutional injury as a result of these conditions. This omission is fatal to 

these claims. 

III. Conclusion 

 The Court recommends that Mr. Reed’s claims against the Faulkner County 

Sheriff’s Department and the Faulkner County Detention Center be DISMISSED, with 

prejudice. His claims against Defendants Ferguson and Fletcher, as well as his access-tocourt and conditions-of-confinement claims, should be DISMISSED, without prejudice. 

His remaining claims should be stayed until his state criminal charges are resolved. 

 DATED, this 23rd day of February, 2018. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:18-cv-00057-DPM Document 16 Filed 02/23/18 Page 6 of 6