Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00214/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00214-2/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JAMES MCALPHIN

ADC #88328 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 5:15-cv-00214-KGB-JTK

DOES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations 

(“Recommendations”) filed by United States Magistrate Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. Nos. 80, 89). 

Plaintiff James McAlphin has filed an objection to the first Recommendation, and defendants have 

filed an objection to the second Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 84, 93). 

I. First Recommendation 

At issue in the first Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80) is Mr. McAlphin’s claim in his motions 

for injunctive relief alleging that co-workers of defendants Campbell and Cornes are withholding 

his mail, that staff have refused to process his parole plan after he made parole in March 2016, and 

that he has been issued a “bogus” disciplinary charge which resulted in his reduction in class (Dkt. 

Nos. 74, 76). He also claims that he suffered a heart attack on August 16, 2016, and that medical 

personnel told him they would let him die. Mr. McAlphin asks that the Court order that he be 

provided medical treatment and transferred to another unit. Judge Kearney recommends a finding 

that the motions for injunctive relief be denied.

The Court writes separately to address Mr. McAlphin’s objections. Judge Kearney 

determined that Mr. McAlphin provided no evidence of a threat of irreparable harm to support a 

hearing under Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). 

Judge Kearney also found that Mr. McAlphin provided no evidence that defendants had interfered 

Case 5:15-cv-00214-KGB Document 103 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 5
2

with his mail, or somehow caused others to interfere with his mail, or that he faced irreparable 

harm if the Court did not grant his motion for injunctive relief. Judge Kearney also noted that Mr. 

McAlphin asserted no proof of retaliation by defendants and does not have a constitutional right 

to parole. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 9-

11 (1979). 

Consequently, Judge Kearney recommends that this Court deny Mr. McAlphin’s motions 

for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76). Mr. McAlphin’s objections, however, contend that the 

Dataphase factors show that he is entitled to injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 84). This Court disagrees

with Mr. McAlphin’s assertion and finds that he has not satisfied his burden under the Eighth 

Circuit-mandated Dataphase factors to show that he is entitled to any injunctive relief. 640 F.2d 

at 109, 113. 

Accordingly, after careful review of the first Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80), the timely 

objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the first Recommendation 

should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all 

respects. Mr. McAlphin’s motions for injunctive relief, whether considered motions for temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunction, are hereby denied (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76).

II. Second Recommendation

Also before the Court is the second Recommendation recommending that this Court grant 

in part and deny in part the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Campbell and 

Cornes (Dkt. No. 89). Defendants have filed an objection to the second Recommendation (Dkt. 

No. 93).

Judge Kearney recommends granting in part the motion for summary judgment filed by 

defendants Campbell and Carnes as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in their 

Case 5:15-cv-00214-KGB Document 103 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 5
3

official capacities and denying in part the motion as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against 

them in their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 89).

The Court writes separately to address defendants’ objections to the second 

Recommendation (Dkt. No. 93). Defendants state that when considering qualified immunity, “the 

courts generally consider two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and 

(2) whether that right was so clearly established that a reasonable official would have known that 

his or her actions were unlawful. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).” (Dkt. No. 93, 

at 1-2 (quoting Dkt. No. 89, at 5)). Defendants claim that Judge Kearney failed to conduct an 

analysis of either of those prongs and that, based on the undisputed facts, Mr. McAlphin failed to 

establish either prong (Dkt. No. 93, at 2-3).

To sustain a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must prove that 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 834 (1994). In other words, Mr. McAlphin must show: (1) that he suffered objectively 

serious medical needs, and (2) that Sergeant Carnes actually knew of but deliberately disregarded 

those needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). Sergeant Carnes must 

have both been aware of Mr. McAlphin’s serious medical condition and drawn the inference that

a substantial risk of serious harm existed. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Judge Kearney found that “accepting [Mr. McAlphin’s] version of facts as true, a dispute 

of material fact exists as to whether a reasonable person in the Defendants’ positions would have 

left [Mr. McAlphin] unattended, without food, for the length of time at issue, and whether, after 

being informed of his condition, they would have attempted to seek medical attention for [Mr. 

McAlphin]. In addition, several questions remain unanswered which the Court finds necessary to 

Case 5:15-cv-00214-KGB Document 103 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 5
4

determining this case. These include whether the Defendants were under an obligation to inquire 

about [Mr. McAlphin’s] medications and/or medical condition prior to transporting him, whether 

their duties included monitoring [him] while in the Fayetteville courthouse cell, whether

Defendants should have arranged for [Mr. McAlphin] to receive lunch at a reasonable time, and 

whether medical care for [Mr. McAlphin] was accessible and/or necessary prior to their return trip 

to the East Arkansas Regional Unit.” (Dkt. No. 89, at 7). 

The Court examines the second Recommendation based on the record that existed at the 

time Judge Kearney reviewed the motion for summary judgment and issued the second 

Recommendation. The Court will not consider supplements to the factual record tendered by 

defendants at this stage of the proceedings. This Court agrees that a dispute of material fact existed 

at the time the second Recommendation was issued as to Mr. McAlphin’s Eighth Amendment 

claim against defendants Campbell and Carnes in their individual capacities. Accordingly, after 

careful review of the second Recommendation (Dkt. No. 89), the timely objections, and a de novo

review of the record, the Court concludes that the second Recommendation should be, and hereby 

is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment is granted in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in 

their official capacities, and denied in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in 

their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 68).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves and adopts both Recommendations in their 

entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 80, 89). The Court denies Mr. 

McAlphin’s motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76). The Court grants in part defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in their 

Case 5:15-cv-00214-KGB Document 103 Filed 03/28/17 Page 4 of 5
5

official capacities, and denies the motion in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against 

them in their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 68).

So ordered this 28th day of March, 2017.

 _______________________________

 Kristine G. Baker

 United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00214-KGB Document 103 Filed 03/28/17 Page 5 of 5