Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01960/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01960-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM F. CARADINE/ASSABUR, PLAINTIFF

ADC #90785

v. No. 4:10CV01960 JLH

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR 

MEDICAL SCIENCES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

William F. Caradine/Assabur has brought this action against the University of Arkansas for

Medical Sciences and unnamed nurses and physicians alleging that the treatment that his mother

received at that institution between 1993 and 1998 resulted in her death in 1998. Caradine/Assabur

is an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction, and he has filed a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that the

Court shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or

malicious or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Section 1915A of Title 28

of the United States Code provides that the Court is to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief

against governmental entities, officers, or employees and must dismiss the complaint if the prisoner

has raised claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, or malicious or fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

The claims brought by Caradine/Assabur are legally insufficient and frivolous for three

reasons. First, there is no factual allegation that would give this Court jurisdiction over the claims.

Caradine/Assabur does not allege that he is a citizen of a state other than Arkansas, so the Court

lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nor does he allege any basis for concluding that

Case 4:10-cv-01960-JLH Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 3
2

the action is brought under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so he has not

alleged anything that would give the Court federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It

appears that his complaint alleges medical malpractice, which is a claim that arises under the laws

of the State of Arkansas, not a claim that arises under federal law.

Secondly, Caradine/Assabur lacks standing. Under Arkansas law, Caradine/Assabur’s claim

would either be a wrongful death claim or a survival action. A survival action must be brought

pursuant to section 16-62-101 of the Arkansas Code and by the executor or administrator of the

estate of the deceased person. Hubbard v. Nat’l Healthcare of Pocahontas, Inc., 371 Ark. 444, 447,

267 S.W.3d 573, 575 (2007). In St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Circuit Court of Craighead

County, 348 Ark. 197, 204, 72 S.W.3d 584, 588 (2002), the court held that a pro se complaint filed

by a person who was not the administrator of the estate of the deceased person was not properly

brought as a survival action, and the pro se complaint was a nullity. Arkansas law also provides for

wrongful death actions in Arkansas Code section 16-62-102. Such an action must be brought by the

personal representative of the deceased person or, if there is no personal representative, by the heirs

at law. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102(b) (2010). Caradine/Assabur does not allege that he has been

appointed as the personal representative for his deceased mother. If no personal representative has

been appointed, a wrongful death suit must be filed with all of the heirs at law of the deceased person

joined as parties to the suit. Hubbard, 371 Ark. at 448, 267 S.W.3d at 575. Caradine/Assabur does

not allege that all of the heirs at law have joined in the action. Indeed, unless he is the only heir at

law of his deceased mother, it is obvious that not all of the heirs have joined. 

Finally, the claims that Caradine/Assabur wishes to bring are legally insufficient and

frivolous because they are barred by the period of limitations. Under Arkansas law as it existed in

Case 4:10-cv-01960-JLH Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 3
1

 In 1979, the General Assembly enacted the Medical Malpractice Act, which requires that

all actions for medical injury be brought within two years after the date of the wrongful act. Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-114-203; see St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 348 Ark. at 203, 73 S.W.3d at 587-88 (“The

medical malpractice act applies to all causes of action for medical injury arising after April 2, 1979,

including wrongful-death and survival actions arising from the death of a patient.”)

3

1998, the wrongful death statute provided for a period of limitations that required an action to be

brought within three years after the death of the person alleged to have been wrongfully killed. Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-62-102(c) (1997). At that time, a cause of action for the estate under the survival

statute had to be brought within three years after the cause of action accrued. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-

56-105; see Hicks v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 181 F. Supp. 648 (W.D. Ark. 1960).1

 

For all of these reasons, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this action is dismissed without

prejudice because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal of this action will constitute a “strike” as defined by

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

pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2011.

 

J. LEON HOLMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-01960-JLH Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 3 of 3