Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00016/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

1

Doc. No. 15.

2

Doc. No. 1.

3

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

4

Cody v. CBM Corr. Food Servs., No. 06-1474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19502 (8th Cir.

Aug. 15, 2007) (citing Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-915 (8th Cir. 2004)).

5

Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MORGAN WELCHER PLAINTIFF 

 

v. 5:07CV00016-WRW

JESSE L. KEARNEY DEFENDANT 

ORDER

Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff has responded.1

Plaintiff’s Complaint reads:

1. I Morgan Welcher would like to file a complaint against the defendant listed above.

2. Mr. Jessie L. Kearney disregarded my medical status, financial status, and disability

status and had me put in jail on August 28, 2006. In Dumas and Pine Bluff, AR. The

defendant continues to use this type of harassment and retaliation to force me to comply

with his demands.

3. I am disable and is unable to take my medication on schedule as prescribed by my

doctor. This causes me to stay in a lot of pain and increases my illness. I would be

constantly denied the proper medical attention and treatment while I am in jail. The

defendant continues to harass and threaten to have me put in jail. The defendant refused

to allow me to be represented by an attorney whenever I had to appear in court. I’m

seeking relief for damages, cost, and attorney fees.2

Pro se complaints should be construed liberally.3 However, the court “is not required to assume

facts not alleged or to construct legal theory that assumes facts not pleaded.”4

 A pro se complaint

should be liberally construed, but still must provide facts sufficient to support its claims.5

Case 5:07-cv-00016-BRW Document 16 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 2
6

Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993). 

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

8

Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al., 835 F. Supp. 1114, 1118 (E.D. Mo.

1993).

9

Doc. No. 15.

10Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 10) and Motion for Judgment (Doc. No. 11).

2

A question of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.6 “Whenever it

appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”7

Since both Plaintiff and Defendant are from Arkansas, this case would properly be before this Court

only under federal question jurisdiction -- which also appears to be lacking. The only possible federal

claim that can be deciphered from Plaintiff’s Complaint is one for a civil rights violation under § 1983. 

However, in order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, one must allege that a person acting under the

color of state law deprived the plaintiff of some constitutional right.8

 There is nothing in the Complaint

suggesting that Defendant was acting under color of state law. In fact, it appears to me that Defendant

was acting either as Plaintiff’s lawyer or Plaintiff’s ex-wife’s lawyer.9

 

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is

GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. All other pending motions10 are DENIED as

MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2008.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00016-BRW Document 16 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2