Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04039/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JAMES McDONALD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4039

 

WILLIAM MAX ELROD,

Manager, Rehkopf’s Grocery;

BRUCE W. TOWNSEND,

Shift Supervisor, Rehkopf’s Grocery;

SCOTT GARNER, Employee,

Rehkopf’s Grocery; JUSTIN MURRAY,

Employee Rehkopf’s Grocery;

ROBERT MILLER, Meat Cutter/Wrapper,

Rehkopf’s Grocery; and

REHKOPF’S GROCERY DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas on April 24, 2006. 

An order transferring the case to this district was entered on April 28, 2006, and the file received

on May 8, 2006. Before the undersigned is the issue of whether the complaint should be served.

 On May 24, 2006, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 10) directing the plaintiff to

sign and return an addendum to his complaint. The court received the addendum (Doc. 12) on

June 21, 2006.

BACKGROUND

McDonald is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).

He alleges his constitutional rights were violated on January 22, 2004, when he was confronted

by employees of Rehkopf’s Grocery. 

According to McDonald, he was in the process of shopping at the grocery store and was

holding several packs of meat with his jacket while trying to get a bag of charcoal when he was

Case 4:06-cv-04039-JLH Document 14 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

stopped and assaulted by store employees. Addendum at ¶ 3. He alleges he escaped by bluffing

his way out using a pocket knife. 

No police officers were at Rehkopf’s Grocery during the confrontation McDonald had

with store employees. Addendum at ¶ 4. McDonald was charged with aggravated robbery,

battery in the first degree, and battery in the second degree as a result of the incident at

Rehkopf’s Grocery. Id. at ¶ 1 & ¶ 3. 

Following the incident, six store employees gave statements to the police. Addendum at

¶ 5. All but one of the statements was used at McDonald’s criminal trial. Id. If the remaining

statement, made by Kimberly Landsdale, had been used, McDonald contends it would have

shown he was the one who was assaulted and that the other store employees committed perjury

in a court of law. Id. McDonald states that William Max Elrod, Bruce W. Townsend, Scott

Garner, Justin Murray, Robert Miller and Michael R. Murphy all testified against him at the

criminal trial. Id. at ¶ 6. McDonald was found guilty of all charges and was sentenced to a term

of imprisonment of ninety years. Id. at ¶ 2. 

DISCUSSION

McDonald’s claims are subject to dismissal. A § 1983 complaint must allege that each

defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff "rights, privileges or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A private

individual who complains of criminal conduct and is a witness for the prosecution does not act

under color of law. See e.g., Grow v. Fisher, 523 F.2d 875, 879 (7th Cir. 1975)("The mere fact

that the individual defendants were complainants and witnesses in an action which itself was

prosecuted under color of law does not make their complaining or testifying other that what it

was, i.e., the action of private persons not acting under color of law."); Rodgers v. Lincoln

Case 4:06-cv-04039-JLH Document 14 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Towing Service, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 13, 21 (N.D. Ill. 1984), aff'd, 771 F.2d 194 (7th Cir. 1985)(A

private citizen does not act under color of law when reporting a crime). 

Defendants cannot be sued under § 1983 because they are private citizens, not acting

under color of state law. Moreover, the defendants are absolutely immune as witnesses in a

criminal proceeding. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1983)(A

witness at trial has absolute immunity from suit under § 1983 for giving false testimony

damaging to a subject of that testimony). 

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous and

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP

action, or any portion thereof, may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

McDonald 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

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

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

district court.

DATED this 22nd day of August 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 4:06-cv-04039-JLH Document 14 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>