Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00904/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00904-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

TERRY MCCOY PLAINTIFF 

v. No: 4:19-cv-00904-JM-PSH 

GORMAN, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District 

Judge James M. Moody Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff Terry McCoy filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

on December 16, 2019, while incarcerated at the Dub Brassell Detention Center in 

Jefferson County (Doc. No. 2). For the reasons stated herein, McCoy’s claims 

should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Case 4:19-cv-00904-JM Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 5
I. Screening Standard 

 Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court 

must review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if 

it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007), the Court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 

‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” citing 5 C. 

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 

2004). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. Twombly at 570. However, a pro se 

plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of 

Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). 

II. Analysis 

Mr. McCoy’s complaint fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, the 

complaint does not properly state a claim against the defendants in their official 

Case 4:19-cv-00904-JM Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 5
capacities. Second, the complaint fails to allege the violation of a constitutional 

right. 

A. Mr. McCoy Fails to State a Claim Against Defendants in Their Official 

Capacities 

 McCoy sues defendants in their official capacities. See Doc. No. 2 at 2. 

Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing 

governmental entity.” Veach v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th 

Cir. 2010). Thus, a suit against the defendants in their official capacities is in essence 

a suit against the County or city itself. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 

2010); Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8thCir. 1998). A municipality cannot be held 

liable on the basis of respondeat superior, or simply by virtue of being the employer 

of a tortfeasor. Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, the defendant county employees can only be held liable in their 

official capacities in this case if McCoy can establish that a constitutional violation 

was committed pursuant to “an official custom, policy, or practice of the 

governmental entity.” Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009). 

 McCoy complains that defendants Gorman and Adam have set commissary 

prices at “sky-high” rates. Doc. 2 at 4. McCoy does not assert that a custom or 

policy of Jefferson County was the moving force behind the claimed actions of the 

defendants. In fact, McCoy asserts in his complaint that the defendants were acting 

in contravention of county policy by setting prices higher than “locally established 

Case 4:19-cv-00904-JM Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 5
retail prices.” Doc. 2 at 4. Accordingly, his complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted and should be dismissed. 

B. Mr. McCoy Fails To Allege Violation Of A Constitutionally Protected 

Right 

 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the 

conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, 

privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 First, as noted above, McCoy claims that the defendants set commissary prices 

higher than Jefferson County policy permits. Doc. 2 at 4. However, prisoners do not 

have a federally protected due process right to require prison officials to comply with 

internal rules or procedures. See Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 

2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). Additionally, 

prisoners do not have a constitutional right to purchase items from the commissary 

at the standard retail rate, including postal stamps. See Register v. Helder, 2015 WL 

6123071 at *2 (W.D. Ark. 2015) (“Even if Plaintiff is charged exorbitant amounts, 

no constitutional claim is stated.”); see also Maxwell v. Byrd, 2010 WL 3515774 at 

*3 (E.D. Ark. 2010) (“Inmates have no constitutionally protected interest in 

purchasing stamps, food substances, or any other goods through a prison 

commissary at the cheapest price possible”); McCall v. Keefe Supply Co., 71 F. 

App’x 779, 780 (10th Cir. 2003) (“there is simply no legal basis for a demand that 

Case 4:19-cv-00904-JM Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 5
inmates be offered items for purchase at or near cost”). Accordingly, his complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: 

 1. McCoy’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning 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 the order adopting this recommendation and accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 2020. 

 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00904-JM Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 5