Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05030/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05030-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RANDALL LEE DUNCAN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5030

WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

FIRST AND SECOND SHIFT EMPLOYEES DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Randall Lee Duncan brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.

1.) His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2-3), and it is now determined whether it

should be served on the defendants. Pursuant to court order, Duncan filed an addendum to his

complaint on March 31, 2005. 

I. Background

In his complaint and addendum, Duncan, who was awaiting trial at the Washington

County Detention Center on pending charges, claims that three pieces of mail were either lost,

stolen, or thrown away. Duncan tried to mail a two letters on January 3, 2005. One of those

letters was to Judge Mary Ann Gunn and the other was to Lora Duncan, the plaintiff's sister. The

letter to Judge Gunn was a request for consideration for drug court, and the letter to Lora Duncan

was a request of the sister to contact the court and to contact the nursing staff to arrange a

doctor's appointment for the plaintiff. (Doc. 6 at ¶¶ 2A-2B.) The plaintiff states that Judge Gunn

did not receive the letter sent to her because he never received a reply about his request. When

plaintiff wrote his sister the following week, she responded that she had not received his January

3 letter. (Doc. 6 at ¶¶ 2C, 2E.) As a result in this delay, plaintiff contends that he was not able

Case 5:05-cv-05030-JLH Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

to go for his surgery and his court date was prolonged. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 2D.) 

On January 23, 2005, plaintiff sent another letter to Judge Gunn concerning his request

for drug court. Again, he did not receive a response to this letter. As he had a court date of

February 4, he was not able to give a response to public defenders office, and his court date was

postponed again. Duncan also sent another letter to Lora Duncan on January 23, 2005, and while

Lora Duncan did receive this letter, it was postmarked February 11, 2005. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 3.) 

After Duncan did not receive a response from his January 3 and January 23 letters to

Judge Gunn, he requested drug court through Loriran Pennington, and the request was received

by, and Duncan received a response from, Judge Gunn. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 5.) Duncan states that he

was not denied access to the drug court because of the mail system at the WCDC, but everything

was delayed, including his trial date, and his case was removed from drug court to someone else.

(Doc. 6 at ¶ 6.) 

On February 9, 2005, an officer Hernandes tried to deliver two letters to the Duncan from

a Loriran Pennington, but because Duncan was out to court that day, the letters were left at the

control booth. This was seen by inmate Chris Latino. One of the letters was sent back to

Pennington because there was no name on it, the other letter appeared three weeks later. Duncan

states that the letters contained the name of a lawyer that he should have called, but by the time

he received that name, the lawyer had "already taken on too [many] money cases and could not

take on [his] case." (Doc. 6 at ¶ 4.) 

Duncan admits that he was not prevented from re-mailing any ofthe lost or stolen letters,

but that he was told that the letters had not been lost or misplaced. He further complains that

there is no designated place for inmates to place their mail, rather they hand it to any officer who

Case 5:05-cv-05030-JLH Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

comes for a jail check, and that officer is responsible for insuring that the mail is logged and

delivered. (Doc. 6 at 7B.) 

II. Discussion

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. "To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a plaintiff] must show [1] a

deprivation [under color of law] of [2] a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the

Constitution or the laws of the United States." Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.

1999). "[T]o establish a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove

that the defendant’s unconstitutional action was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff’s injury."

Butler v. Dowd, 979 F.2d 661, 669 (8th Cir. 1992).

"Inmates have a First Amendment right of free speech to send and receive mail." Hudson

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984). "The fact of

confinement and the needs of the penal institution impose limitations on constitutional rights,

including those derived from the First Amendment." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union,

433 U.S. 119, 125, 97 S. Ct. 2532, 53 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1977). 

"Prisoners’ First Amendment rights encompass the right to be free from certain

interference with mail correspondence." Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001).

"Interference with legal mail implicates a prison inmate’s right to access to the courts and free

speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Davis

v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003). "A prison policy that obstructs privileged inmate

mail can violate inmates’ right of access to the courts." Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051

Case 5:05-cv-05030-JLH Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

(8th Cir. 1998). 

Here, the plaintiff does not contend that any jail official was intentionally disrupting his

ability to send or receive mail. In fact, the plaintiff states that no one prevented him from resending any of the letters that were supposedly lost, stolen, or misplaced. Rather, plaintiff's

complaint is that jail officials were careless with the mail and had not established a procedure

that met with the plaintiff's approval for having only one person responsible for the inmates'

mail. Such a claim is simply negligence and section 1983 liability cannot be founded on claims

of negligence in delivering the mail. See Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1051 n.5 (8th

Cir. 1989) (if plaintiff is unable to prove more than negligence with regard to mail service, this

allegation will have to be dismissed as an independent basis for individual liability). 

Further, even is plaintiff was claiming that on these two occasions someone intentionally

interfered with his mail, claims of isolated incidents of mail tampering generally do not support

a constitutional claim. See Davis, 320 F.3d at 351. 

Finally, it does not appear that the plaintiff suffered any injury as a result of the mail

system at the Washington County Detention Center. He does not assert that he was denied

access to the drug court because of the mail system, and he only states that he was unable to

secure the representation of a certain lawyer because of a delay in the system, not that he was

unable to obtain any representation. Further, he does not explain how the one week delay in

being able to communicate with his sister prevented him from receiving necessary medical help.

III. Conclusion

Therefore, I recommend that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for

failing to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (IFP action, or any portion thereof,

Case 5:05-cv-05030-JLH Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

Duncan has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to

file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely written

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

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court. 

DATED this 29th day of September 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05030-JLH Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>