Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00090/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00090-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

CHRISTIAN J. WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #155008 

v. 5:19CV00090-KGB-JTK 

KEDRICK R. AVERY DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should 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. An original and one copy of 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 the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

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

If you are objecting to the recommendation and desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such 

a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before 

Case 5:19-cv-00090-KGB Document 19 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any 

documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing 

before the District Judge. 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

Mail your objections and AStatement of Necessity@ to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Christian Wright is a state inmate incarcerated at the Cummins Unit of the 

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983, alleging excessive force by Defendant Avery and seeking monetary relief. (Doc. No. 1) 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12), to which 

Plaintiff responded (Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 18). 

II. Complaint 

 Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that he sued Defendant Avery in his official capacity 

only for using excessive force against him on February 3, 2019. (Doc. No. 1, pp. 2, 4) 

III. Motion to Dismiss 

FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2) requires only Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.@ In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007) (overruling Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1967)), and setting a new standard for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted), the Court stated, Aa plaintiff=s obligation to 

Case 5:19-cv-00090-KGB Document 19 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

provide the >grounds= of his >entitle[ment] to relief= requires more than labels and conclusions, and 

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do....Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,@ citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint must contain 

enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. See 

also Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff=s Complaint against him because Plaintiff 

sued him in his official capacity only, and because Plaintiff also admitted that he did not exhaust 

his grievance. In his Response, Plaintiff claimed that he submitted grievances about the incident 

but that the grievances were not returned timely. (Doc. No. 14) By Order dated May 13, 2019, this 

Court directed Plaintiff to file a supplemental response addressing the official capacity argument. 

(Doc. No. 15) In Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response, he addressed the grievance issue and 

Defendant Avery’s alleged excessive force, but did not address the official capacity argument. 

(Doc. No. 18) 

As noted by Defendant, state officials are not subject to a § 1983 lawsuit for money 

damages when they are sued in their official capacities, because they are not considered “persons” 

within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989). The 

Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against state officials sued in their official capacities. 

Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff clearly intended to sue Defendant in his official capacity and that his Complaint 

against Defendant should be dismissed, with prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 

Case 5:19-cv-00090-KGB Document 19 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

12) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 2019. 

______________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 5:19-cv-00090-KGB Document 19 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 4