Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00214/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00214-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

ANTWAN D. MATTHEWS PLAINTIFF 

v. 4:20-cv-00214-JM-JJV 

SUSAN POTTS, Administrator, 

Drew County Jail; and 

MARK GOBER, Sheriff, Drew County DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

James M. Moody Jr. 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 a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

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

additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or 

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following: 

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

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) 

was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

Case 4:20-cv-00214-JM Document 4 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 new hearing. 

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

evidentiary hearing. 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 

 DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION 

Antwan D. Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee in the Drew County Detention 

Facility. He has filed a pro se Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants 

Sheriff Mark Gober and Administrator Susan Potts violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 

2.) After careful consideration, I recommend the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

II. SCREENING 

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(a). 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. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(A)(b). 

An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual allegations must be weighted in favor of Plaintiff. Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “In other words, the ' 1915(d) frivolousness determination, 

Case 4:20-cv-00214-JM Document 4 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 5
3 

frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot 

serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed facts.” Id. But regardless of whether 

a plaintiff is represented or appearing pro se, his “complaint must contain specific facts supporting 

its conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks 

for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads 

facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between 

possibility and plausibility” of entitlement to relief. Id. at 557. 

Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983 allows an individual to bring suit against 

persons who, under color of state law, have caused him to be “depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, 

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 

(1996). Section 1983 itself “creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for 

deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 

(1985) (citations omitted). In order to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

III. PLAINTIFF=S COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff says that, on January 30, 2020, he found a live lizard on his lunch tray. (Doc. No. 

2.) He told Defendant Potts, who took pictures of the lizard. (Id.) But, Plaintiff says she has 

not provided him with copies of the photographs “for my filing.” (Id. at 2.) 

Case 4:20-cv-00214-JM Document 4 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 5
4 

 Because the “Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” only “extreme 

deprivations” that deny “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave 

to form the basis” of a constitutional violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992); 

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). Prisoners and detainees have a constitutional 

right to receive adequate nutrition. Ingrassia v. Schafer, 825 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2016); 

Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). But, to proceed with such a claim, there 

must be facts suggesting the food was nutritionally inadequate or caused the prisoner’s health to 

suffer. Id. Plaintiff has not pled any such facts. And, it is well settled that a single or a few 

incidents of foreign objects being in food, although unpleasant, is insufficient to sustain a 

constitutional violation. See Wishon, 978 F.2d at 449 (prisoner who was food that often contained 

foreign objects had not stated a constitutional violation because he suffered no harm and the meals 

were nutritionally adequate); Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2010) (“A single 

incident of food poisoning or finding a foreign object in food does not constitute a violation of the 

constitutional rights of the prisoner affected”); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th 

Cir.1993) (“The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects, or is sometimes served 

cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation”); Hamm v. DeKalb Cty.

774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985) (same). Accordingly, I conclude Plaintiff has failed to plead 

a plausible § 1983 claim. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. The Complaint (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Case 4:20-cv-00214-JM Document 4 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

 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 4th day of March 2020. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

1

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides as follows: “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.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00214-JM Document 4 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 5