Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00222/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00222-0/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH BLAKE MITCHELL PLAINTIFF 

v. 3:24-cv-00222-DPM-JJV 

SHANE RUSSELL, 

Sheriff, Sharp County DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United 

States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and include the factual or legal basis for the 

objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence 

that supports your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States 

District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Recommendation. 

Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. SCREENING 

Joseph Blake Mitchell is a pretrial detainee at the Sharp County Detention Center 

(“SCDC”) who has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

2.) The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking 

relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A. The court must 

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous 

or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. When conducting this review, the court 

construes pro se pleadings liberally. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). But 

“labels and conclusions,” “formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked 

Case 3:24-cv-00222-DPM Document 4 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 3
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint must provide “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 

 Plaintiff says Defendant Sheriff Shane Russell is violating his due process rights by holding 

him in custody at the SCDC without legal authority to do so. (Doc. 2.) However, records from 

the Sharp County Circuit Court demonstrate that in February 2024, Plaintiff was arrested pursuant 

to a bench warrant for violating the terms of his supervised probation and suspended sentence 

stemming from August 2021 drug convictions and booked into the SCDC.1

 State v. Mitchell, 

68CR2019-127 (Sharp County Circuit Court); State v. Mitchell, 68CR2019-196 (Sharp County 

Circuit Court). After an Initial Appearance during which counsel was appointed, Plaintiff posted 

a $5000 bond and was released from the SCDC. (Id.) However, in July 2024, a bench warrant 

was issued for Plaintiff’s arrest for violating the terms of his bond by testing positive for drugs. 

Plaintiff was arrested, booked into the SCDC, and his bond (which has not been posted) was 

increased to $100,000. A hearing on an Amended Petition for Revocation filed in this state 

criminal case is scheduled for December 16, 2024. 

 While he was still in custody at the SCDC, Plaintiff was charged, on August 6, 2024, by 

Criminal Information with unlawfully using the SCDC phone to traffic methamphetamine. State 

v. Mitchell, 68CR-24-120. On August 8, 2024, a Bench Warrant was issued and served on Plaintiff 

at the SCDC. During his August 28, 2024 Initial Appearance, counsel was appointed to represent 

Plaintiff and bond (which has not been posted) was set at $25,000. Finally, this state criminal case 

is scheduled to be tried on February 18, 2025. 

1

 See Roe v. Nebraska, 861 F.3d 785, 788 (8th Cir. 2017) (a court may take judicial notice of 

public records); Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 at n. 2 (8th Cir. 2005) (same). 

Case 3:24-cv-00222-DPM Document 4 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 3
 Based on these state court records, it is clear Sheriff Russell is not detaining Plaintiff 

illegally. Accordingly, I recommend this case be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state 

a plausible claim for relief. 

II. CONCLUSION

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that; 

 1. The Complaint (Doc. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 2. The Court recommend dismissal count as a strike, in the future, for purposes 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 an Order adopting this Recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not 

be taken in good faith. 

Dated this 3rd day of December 2024. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00222-DPM Document 4 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3