Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00160/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00160-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ROGER D. MOSBY

ADC# 63018 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 5:19-cv-00160-KGB-JJV

WENDY KELLEY, Director

Arkansas Department of Correction DEFENDANT

ORDER

The Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United 

States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 7). Also pending before the Court is plaintiff Roger 

D. Mosby’s motion for extension of time to file response, motion to appoint counsel, motion for 

status, motion for emergency evidentiary hearing and motion for ruling, and motion for expedited 

ruling (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 16). Though objections were due by June 17, 2019, Mr. Mosby 

submitted his objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations on July 12, 2019 (Dkt. 

No. 10). For good cause shown, the Court grants Mr. Mosby’s motion for extension of time, and 

the Court considers the objections Mr. Mosby filed (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10). After careful review of the 

Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Mosby’s objections, as well as a de novo review 

of the record, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all 

respects (Dkt. No. 7). The Court also denies Mr. Mosby’s motion to appoint counsel and denies 

as moot Mr. Mosby’s motions for status, evidentiary hearing, and expedited ruling (Dkt. Nos. 9, 

11, 12, 16).

Mr. Mosby is incarcerated at the Maximum Security Unit in Tucker, Arkansas, and filed a 

pre se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No. 2). According to Judge Volpe, Mr. Mosby 

is a “three-striker” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1996, 28 

Case 5:19-cv-00160-KGB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 5
2

U.S.C. § 1915(g) (Dkt. Nos. 3, at 1; 7, at 2). Mr. Mosby sued Director of the Arkansas Department 

of Correction Wendy Kelley and alleged that drugs were being placed into the meals provided at 

the Maximum Security Unit , making Mr. Mosby feel like a zombie and “produc[ing] imbalances 

in [his] body and health.” (Id., at 7-8, 15-16). Because of this alleged doping, Mr. Mosby says that 

he is not eating regularly (Dkt. No. 7, at 2). Mr. Mosby also contends that he cannot pursue his 

claims in court because he does not have and cannot get the names of the individuals he wants to 

sue, and Mr. Mosby further contends that he does not have sufficient access to legal materials and 

that his right to access the courts has been violated (Dkt. No. 2, at 16-20). For the purpose of 

determining imminent danger, Judge Volpe found Mr. Mosby’s allegations that his meals are being 

tainted with drugs “frivolous” (Dkt. No. 7, at 2). Judge Volpe also found that no other allegations 

in the record indicate Mr. Mosby is in imminent danger of serious physical injury (Id.).

On May 9, 2019, Judge Volpe directed Mr. Mosby to pay the statutory filing fee of $400.00 

within fourteen days (Dkt. No. 3), if he intended to pursue this action. Mr. Mosby requested an 

extension of time in which to respond to Judge Volpe’s May 9 Order, and Judge Volpe granted his 

motion, giving Mr. Mosby until May 31, 2019, to file a response (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5). In his June 3, 

2019, response, Mr. Mosby contended that the merits of his complaint entitled him to in forma 

pauperis status, among other arguments (Dkt. No. 6). After reading Mr. Mosby’s response and 

conducting another thorough review of Mr. Mosby’s complaint, Judge Volpe found Mr. Mosby’s 

allegations of being drugged “frivolous” (Dkt. No. 7, at 3). Judge Volpe reiterated that he found 

Mr. Mosby made no other allegations that indicate he is in imminent danger of serious physical 

injury (Id.).

Judge Volpe recommends that Mr. Mosby’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and 

that the Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from 

Case 5:19-cv-00160-KGB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 5
3

any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken 

in good faith. 

The PLRA enacted what is commonly referred to as the “three strikes” provision. Martin 

v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). This provision reads, in relevant part:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action 

or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 

while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court 

of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, 

or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). According to Judge Volpe, Mr. Mosby is a “three-striker” within the meaning 

of the PLRA (Dkt. Nos. 3, at 1; 7, at 2). Mr. Mosby has had at least three 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or as frivolous: Mosby v. 

Williams, 5:97cv00457-GH (E.D. Ark.); Mosby v. Crumpton, 5:91cv00426-GH (E.D. Ark.); 

Mosby v. Dolphin, 5:91cv00337-SWW (E.D. Ark.); Mosby v. Campbell, 5:95cv00703-SMR (E.D. 

Ark.); Mosby v. Crumpton, No. 91-3171, 953 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. Oct. 10, 1991) (Dkt. No. 3, at 1 

n.1). Thus, given Mr. Mosby’s status as a “three-striker,” Mr. Mosby’s current action is barred 

under the PLRA due to the absence of imminent danger of serious physical injury. Upon a 

thorough review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Volpe that Mr. Mosby fails to allege 

credibly that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. As such, Mr. Mosby’s action 

should be dismissed.

Mr. Mosby also moves for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 9). In his motion, Mr. Mosby

requests counsel or standby counsel to represent him and his legal rights (Id., at 1). Mr. Mosby 

states that he is a very sick and impaired prisoner and that he needs professional counsel’s 

assistance soon (Id.). In support of his motion, Mr. Mosby includes two Unit Level Grievance 

Forms and a sworn affidavit from Mr. Mosby himself dated July 9, 2019 (Id., at 3-5). In the 

Case 5:19-cv-00160-KGB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 5
4

Grievance Forms and the affidavit, Mr. Mosby alleges that Director Kelley has resorted to 

impeding Mr. Mosby’s pleadings and mailed submissions to the Court through her subordinates at 

Mr. Mosby’s place of confinement (Id., at 1). Though not made explicit, Mr. Mosby seems to 

argue that appointment of counsel would help Mr. Mosby rectify these alleged wrongs and prevent 

them from happening in the future (Id.).

The factors to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel in a civil case are whether: 

(1) the plaintiff can afford to retain an attorney; (2) the plaintiff has made a good-faith effort to 

retain an attorney but has been unable to do so; (3) there is some factual basis for the plaintiff’s 

lawsuit; and (4) the nature of the litigation is such that the plaintiff and the court would benefit 

from the assistance of counsel. Slaughter v. Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir. 1984). 

Moreover, courts evaluate factors such as “the complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent 

litigant to investigate facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the indigent 

to present his claim.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). “Indigent civil 

litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.” Davis v. Scott, 94 

F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Edgington v. Missouri Dep’t of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 

780 (8th Cir. 1995)). “The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and 

the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel . . . .” Edgington, 52 F.3d at 447 (citation 

omitted). 

In considering the factors listed above, the Court denies Mr. Mosby’s motion to appoint 

counsel in this case. Mr. Mosby has not demonstrated a good-faith effort to retain an attorney, and 

the Court, in agreement with Judge Volpe, finds that there is little factual basis for Mr. Mosby’s 

lawsuit. See Maplewood, 731 F.2d at 590. Finally, the Court does not find that the nature of the 

Case 5:19-cv-00160-KGB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 5
5

litigation is such that Mr. Mosby and the Court would benefit from assistance of counsel. See id.; 

Edington, 52 F.3d at 447. 

It is therefore ordered that:

1. The Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as 

the Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 7);

2. The Court grants Mr. Mosby’s motion for extension of time to file response (Dkt. 

No. 8). The Court considers the objections Mr. Mosby filed (Dkt. No. 10);

3. The Court dismisses Mr. Mosby’s complaint without prejudice (Dkt. No. 2) and 

denies the requested relief;

4. The Court denies Mr. Mosby’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 9);

5. The Court denies as moot Mr. Mosby’s motion for status (Dkt. No. 11);

6. The Court denies as moot Mr. Mosby’s motion for emergency evidentiary hearing 

and motion for ruling (Dkt. No. 12); 

7. The Court denies as moot Mr. Mosby’s motion for expedited ruling (Dkt. No. 16); 

and

8. The Court certifies, pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in 

good faith.

So ordered this the 24th day of January 2020.

___

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00160-KGB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 5