Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_08-cv-00121/USCOURTS-ared-2_08-cv-00121-0/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

HELENA DIVISION

JULIUS ANDREWS PLAINTIFF

REG #06075-025

V. NO: 2:08CV00121 SWW/HDY

KAREN HUNTER et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

W. Wright. 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 eleven (11) 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 also 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

Case 2:08-cv-00121-SWW Document 10 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 4
2

hearing before 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 “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Forrest City, filed this

pro se complaint (docket entry #1), pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on June 23, 2008.

I. Screening

Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court must review

the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-5 (2007) (overruling Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1967), and setting new standard for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted), the Court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

‘entitle[ment]to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

Case 2:08-cv-00121-SWW Document 10 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 4
3

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, not merely conceivable. Twombly at 1974. Although Twombly involved

allegations of conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, the holding has been

applied in a § 1983 context as well. See Robbins v. Oklahoma, Case No. 07-7021, 2008 U.S. App.

LEXIS 5915 (10th Cir. March 21, 2008). However, a pro se plaintiff's allegations must be construed

liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir.2002)

(citations omitted).

II. Analysis

According to Plaintiff, he has been discriminated against by prison officials, who refuse to

move him to a prison camp. Plaintiff’s complaint is that, despite his eligibility for placement into

a camp, he has not been placed into one, even though other inmates with records worse than his have

been allowed to transfer. Plaintiff contends that this is a violation of his due process and equal

protection rights, as well as prison policy.

Plaintiff has no right to be housed in any particular prison. See Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d

936, 940 (8th Cir. 1999). Although Plaintiff contends that his equal protection rights are being

violated because he is not being transferred, nothing in his complaint indicates that the denial is for

any constitutionally impermissible reason. See Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (8th

Cir.1998) (en banc) (elements of equal protection claim). Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff

contends that his lack of transfer violated prison regulations, the Court notes that such a violation

is not actionable. See Gardner v. Howard, 109 F. 3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997)(no § 1983 liability

Case 2:08-cv-00121-SWW Document 10 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 4
1

Because § 1983 cases are similar to Bivens cases, Appellate Courts have tended to

incorporate § 1983 law into Bivens actions. See Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1037 (8th Cir. 1997).

4

for violation of prison policy).1

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

2. This dismissal count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment

dismissing this action be considered frivolous and not in good faith.

DATED this 19 day of August, 2008.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00121-SWW Document 10 Filed 08/19/08 Page 4 of 4