Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_09-cv-00179/USCOURTS-ared-2_09-cv-00179-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HELENA DIVISION

SAMUEL N. ANDERS PLAINTIFF

REG. #21467-076 

 NO. 2:09CV00179 SWW/HDY

SUSIE ROBERTS 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 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 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

1

Case 2:09-cv-00179-SWW Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 4
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 Institution at Forrest City

(“FCIFC”), filed this pro se complaint (docket entry #2), pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on December 3, 2009. 

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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 elements of a

2

Case 2:09-cv-00179-SWW Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 4
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 570. 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’s complaint, his sentence has been calculated improperly, and he

should have been allowed to serve it in a medical facility, rather than at FCIFC. Plaintiff seeks his

release, and damages for the time he has been held at FCIFC. Because release is not a remedy

available in a civil rights action, and Plaintiff cannot be awarded damages without first having his

conviction or sentence reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of a federal writ of

habeas corpus, his complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

Plaintiff’s only remedy for challenging the lawfulness of his continued incarceration is a writ

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 Furthermore, any judgment in Plaintiff’s favor

would imply the invalidity of his current confinement. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487

(1994) (if judgment in favor of a prisoner in a § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity

of the conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence, then no claim for damages lies unless the

conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged or called into question by issuance of a federal writ of

1

Plaintiff is pursuing a writ of habeas corpus in Anders v. Outlaw, ED/AR No. 2:09CV180.

3

Case 2:09-cv-00179-SWW Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 3 of 4
habeas corpus).2

 There is no indication that Plaintiff’s conviction or sentence has been reversed,

expunged, or called into question by issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus, and any award of

damages would certainly imply the invalidity of his sentence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint

must be dismissed. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT 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 is considered frivolous and not in good faith.

DATED this 7 day of January, 2010.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

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

Case 2:09-cv-00179-SWW Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 4 of 4