Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04084/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04084-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

ELIJAH JONQUAILDESHAWN KING PLAINTIFF 

v. Civil No. 4:24-CV-04084-CDC 

WARDEN JOHN MINERS, Southwest 

Arkansas Community Correction Center 

(SWACCC); MAJOR VICKY WALKER, 

SWACCC; CORPORAL LEUGENE 

WHITE, SWACCC; LIEUTENANT BRIAN 

MARTIN, SWACCC; CORPORAL LUCAS 

McCLAIN, SWACCC DEFENDANTS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Elijah Jonquaildeshawn King, a prisoner serving a sentence at the Southwest 

Arkansas Community Correction Center (“SWACCC”), filed the above-captioned civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court previously granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). After noting potential legal and factual deficiencies with 

Plaintiff’s original complaint, this Court also previously ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 3). 

Having now received that Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 8), United States District Court 

Chief Judge Susan O. Hickey has referred this matter to the undersigned for the purposes of making 

a report and recommendation on preservice review of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Upon that review and for the 

reasons outlined below, this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s conditions-of-confinement claims 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

against Defendants Corporal Leugene White and Corporal Lucas McClain in their individual 

capacities proceed and all other claims be dismissed without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff asserts four claims for relief.1 See (ECF No. 8). First, Plaintiff says that when 

he was placed in segregation cell number 103 on June 18, 2024, the cell had been “trashed” by 

the prior resident, there was rust around the sink and faucet, black mold growing on the walls, 

human feces on the wall next to the bunk, and the cell was infested with fire ants. (ECF No. 8, p. 

4). Plaintiff says that he asked Defendant White for cleaning supplies several times throughout 

the day and into the next week, but Defendant White responded aggressively, and failed to provide 

him a grievance form upon his request. Plaintiff says that while he was housed in segregation, he 

sustained multiple ant bites, experienced respiratory issues, including a mild cough for two weeks, 

and lost his appetite, causing him to lose six pounds. Plaintiff says that the policy is that offenders 

are to be provided an opportunity to submit a grievance concerning their conditions of 

confinement. Further, Plaintiff claims that policies require the prison to provide “safe and secure 

housing” for inmates. 

 Second, Plaintiff says that when he was in segregation, he asked Defendant McClain for 

cleaning supplies, but Defendant McClain denied that request, telling him that “A shift” personnel 

were responsible for cleaning the cells. 

 Third, Plaintiff says that on June 23, 2024, he requested to speak to Defendant Walker 

about his conditions of confinement in segregation cell 103, but he was told he needed to submit 

a request form. According to Plaintiff, when he submitted a request form, Defendant Walker 

1

 Although Plaintiff refers to his final claim as claim number five, it appears that this is a 

typo because there is no claim four. Thus, there are four total claims. See (ECF No. 8). 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

responded saying that he needed to submit a grievance. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Walker 

violated the SWACCC grievance procedure. 

 Fourth, Plaintiff says that when Defendant Miners was walking through segregation on 

July 26, 2024, he attempted to talk to him about the conditions he was experiencing in segregation 

cell 103, but Defendant Miners told him to submit a grievance on the issue. Plaintiff said that 

Defendant Miners walked away before he could explain to him that he had already tried 

unsuccessfully to obtain a grievance form to submit a grievance on these issues. 

 Plaintiff identifies all the defendants in their individual and official capacities. He requests 

compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under PLRA, the Court must review a case initiated by a prisoner prior to service of 

process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims 

that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 

(2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it 

does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A pro se complaint, moreover, is to be given liberal 

construction, meaning “that if the essence of an allegation is discernable, even though it is not 

pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits 

the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Stone v. Harry, 364 

F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004). However, “they still must allege sufficient facts to support the 

claims advanced.” Id. at 914 (citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)). 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. See (ECF No. 8). 

Thus, this Court considers whether he has established a plausible claim for relief under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege a violation of a 

constitutional right committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Andrews v. City of 

West Branch, Iowa, 454 F.3d 914, 918 (8th Cir. 2006). 

A. Claim 1 

Regarding Plaintiff’s first claim, he says that the conditions of his confinement in 

segregation cell number 103 constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that he was denied due 

process. 

1. Conditions-of-Confinement 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” and requires that 

prison officials provide humane conditions of confinement. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “Prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate 

food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety 

of the inmates.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. But the Constitution “does not mandate comfortable 

prisons.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). To violate the Eighth Amendment, a 

prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of 

life’s necessities.” Id. at 347. It is “only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” that 

implicates the Eighth Amendment.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff’s assertions suggest that Defendant White was aware of the conditions of 

his confinement but denied his requests to clean his cell. (ECF No. 8, p. 5). Accordingly, for the 

purposes of preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), this Court finds that Plaintiff has 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

asserted a plausible conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendant White in his individual 

capacity. See Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff stated conditions of 

confinement claim where he was “placed in a cell covered with filth and human waste, including 

the food slot, in violation of the institution’s own rules and regulations . . . [his] requests for 

remedial measures were unheeded, and he was denied access to cleaning supplies”). 

Plaintiff, however, also identifies Defendant White as a defendant in his official capacity. 

(ECF No. 8, p. 5). “A suit against a government official in his or her official capacity is another 

way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Baker v. Chisom, 501 

F.3d 920, 925 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 

(1978)). In this case, therefore, as an employee of the SWACCC, Defendant White is alleged to 

be an agent of the State of Arkansas. It is well-established that “§ 1983 damages claims against [] 

individual defendants acting in their official capacities are [] barred, either by the Eleventh 

Amendment or because in these capacities they are not “persons” for § 1983 purposes.” Murphy 

v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 

491 U.S. 58 (1989)). But “[s]tate officials acting in their official capacities are § 1983 ‘persons’ 

when sued for prospective relief, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such relief.” Id.; see 

also McDaniel v. Precythe, 897 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir. 2018) (“[A] private party may sue state 

officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

official capacity claim for damages against Defendant White should be dismissed without 

prejudice.2

 Plaintiff, however, also requests “an injunction to thwart these critical processes being 

so egregiously halted in the future.” (ECF No. 8, p. 11). But Plaintiff is no longer subject to the 

2

 Notably, “the Eleventh Amendment does not bar damages claims against state officials 

acting in their personal capacities.” Murphy, 127 F.3d at 754. 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

conditions of confinement of segregation cell number 103, see (ECF No. 8), thus, Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief with respect to those conditions is moot. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 

1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (“a prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief to improve prison conditions 

is moot if he or she is no longer subject to those conditions.”). Plaintiff’s official capacity claims 

against Defendant White for his conditions of confinement in segregation cell 103 are therefore 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim. 

2. Due Process 

This leaves Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied due process. As the Court understands it, 

Plaintiff does not challenge the basis for his transfer to segregation, instead, he claims that he was 

denied due process because Defendant White “failed to give him a complaint/grievance form when 

[he asked] for one.” (ECF No. 8, p. 5). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from 

depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. Const. 

amend. XIV, § 1. Review of a due process claim proceeds in two steps. First, the Court must 

determine whether the claimant was deprived of a protected life, liberty, or property interest. See

Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 424 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “The possession of a protected 

life, liberty, or property interest is a condition precedent’ to any due process claim.” Id. (quoting 

Movers Warehouse, Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 71 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1995)). Second, if a 

protected interest is at issue, the Court must determine whether the procedures employed were 

sufficient to safeguard that interest. See, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-70 (1974) 

(setting procedural requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). 

In this case, Plaintiff’s due process claim does not proceed past step one. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has concluded that prison policies establishing an 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
7 

administrative remedy procedure “do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to 

that procedure.” Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Thus, Defendant 

White’s purported failure to provide Plaintiff access to the prison’s grievance procedure by 

refusing him a grievance form does not implicate a protected liberty interest triggering due process 

protections. Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant White, therefore, fails as a matter of 

law and should be dismissed. 

B. Claim 2 

Regarding claim two, Plaintiff says that Defendant McClain refused to allow him (or 

anyone else) to clean his segregation cell. (ECF No. 8, p. 6). Given the purported conditions of 

Plaintiff’s segregation cell, assertions this Court must assume as true for the purposes of preservice 

review, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has asserted a plausible conditions of confinement claim 

against Defendant McClain in his individual capacity.3

 See Howard, 887 F.2d at 137. 

Plaintiff also identifies Defendant McClain in his official capacity. As noted above, such 

a claim is the same as a claim against the State of Arkansas itself. The State of Arkansas, however, 

cannot be sued under § 1983 for money damages, only prospective injunctive relief. Murphy, 127 

F.3d at 754. Because Plaintiff is no longer subject to the conditions that gave rise to his claims, 

however, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot. See Martin, 780 F.2d at 1337. Plaintiff’s 

official capacity claims against Defendant McClain should therefore be dismissed as moot.

C. Claims 3 and 4 

Claims three and four are similar—claim three asserts a due process violation against 

Defendant Walker for purportedly violating the SWACCC grievance procedure and claim four 

3

 In recommending that Plaintiff has established a plausible conditions of confinement claim 

against Defendants White and McClain in their individual capacities for the purposes of preservice 

review, this Court makes no remark on the potential merits of such claims. 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
8 

asserts a due process violation against Defendant Miners for failing to enforce the grievance 

procedure. See (ECF No. 8, pp. 7-11). 

As noted above, however, to state a plausible due process violation, Plaintiff must first 

articulate a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property interest. Singleton, 176 F.3d at 424. 

Because the Eighth Circuit has concluded that there is no protected liberty interest in a prison 

grievance procedure, see Flick, 932 F.2d at 729, Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants 

Walker and Miners (claims three and four) should likewise be dismissed without prejudice. 

D. Defendant Martin 

Plaintiff identifies Lieutenant Brian Martin as a defendant to this action in the case caption. 

(ECF No. 8, p. 1). But in the body of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to assert any 

facts identifying what Defendant Martin allegedly did (or failed to do) in violation of his 

constitutional rights. See Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Liability 

under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”). 

Indeed, Plaintiff does not explicitly assert that he is suing Defendant Martin in his individual 

capacity. Accordingly, this Court must interpret the Amended Complaint as asserting only official 

capacity claims against Defendant Martin. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Comm. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 

619 (8th Cir. 1995). 

As noted above, any official capacity claims against Defendant Martin are the functional 

equivalent of claims against the State of Arkansas, Defendant Martin’s employer. As such, the 

only form of relief available to Plaintiff with respect to Defendant Martin in his official capacity 

is prospective injunctive relief. See Murphy, 127 F.3d at 754. For the purposes of preservice 

review, however, the only plausible claim for relief that Plaintiff has asserted in his Amended 

Complaint is a conditions-of-confinement claim under the Eighth Amendment for the conditions 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
9 

of his segregation cell. Plaintiff is no longer subject to those conditions. See generally (ECF No. 

8). Plaintiff’s request for prospective injunctive relief is therefore moot. See Martin, 780 F.2d at 

1337. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendant Martin should therefore be dismissed 

without prejudice.4 

CONCLUSION

In sum, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

this Court recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim against Defendant 

White in his individual capacity (claim 1) PROCEED; (2) Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement 

against Defendant McClain in his individual capacity (claim 2) PROCEED; (3) Plaintiff’s 

conditions-of-confinement claims against Defendant White and Defendant McClain in their 

official capacities (claim 1 and claim 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) 

Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant White (claim 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; (5) Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants Walker and Miners (claims 

3 and 4) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (4) Defendants Miners, Walker, and 

Martin be TERMINATED from this action. 

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in 

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

4

 Even if Plaintiff explicitly asserted that he was suing Defendant Martin in his individual 

capacity, because he fails to assert any facts alleging what, specifically Defendant Martin did (or 

failed to do) in violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims would 

similarly fail as a matter of law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (“[E]ach 

Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct.”). 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:

<pageID>
10 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. 

STATUS OF REFERRAL: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment “conditions-of-confinement” 

claims against Defendants White and McClain in their individual capacities (claims one and two) 

remain referred. 

DATED this 24th day of September 2024. 

/s/ Christy Comstock

CHRISTY COMSTOCK 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 09/24/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID

#: <pageID>