Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00068/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00068-3/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 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

JOSEPH COSSEY PLAINTIFF 

v. No: 3:19-cv-00068 KGB-PSH 

CRAIGHEAD COUNTY JAIL,1 et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND PARTIAL RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following proposed Partial Recommendation has been sent to United States District 

Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. 

If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your 

objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this 

Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff Joseph Cossey, a pretrial detainee at the Craighead County Detention Facility, 

filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 1).2 Cossey 

was instructed to file an amended complaint describing how each defendant violated his 

constitutional rights and how he was injured by each defendant’s actions. See Doc. No. 8. Cossey 

                                                             1

 Because Cossey does not name the Craighead County Jail or Brown as a defendant in his most 

recent amended complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to remove the jail and Brown as a defendant in 

the style of the case. 

2

 Cossey’s complaint initially listed two other plaintiffs, and his more recent amended complaints 

list a fourth. A separate civil rights lawsuit was initiated on behalf of each plaintiff. The cases are not 

consolidated at this time. The Court notes that Cossey may not assert claims on behalf of his fellow 

inmates. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (“A prisoner cannot bring claims on 

behalf of other prisoners.”).

Case 3:19-cv-00068-KGB Document 14 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

filed an amended complaint naming individual defendants and describing most defendants’ actions 

(Doc. No. 12). For the reasons described below, the undersigned finds that Cossey states claims 

against defendants Keith Bowers, Marty Boyd, and T. Raymond but does not state a claim against 

defendant Keith Harold. Additionally, Cossey does not state a claim based on verbal insults, and 

certain relief sought by Cossey is not available. 

I. Screening Standard 

 Federal law requires courts to screen prisoner complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 1915(e)(2). 

Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for relief; or that seek money 

from a defendant who is immune from paying damages should be dismissed before the defendants 

are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 1915(e)(2). Although a complaint requires only a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, the factual allegations set forth 

therein must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“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 cause of action will not do. . . .”). 

While construed liberally, a pro se complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. 

II. Analysis 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct of a 

defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured 

by the United States Constitution or by federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The bulk of Cossey’s 

complaint concerns the conditions at the Craighead County Detention Center (i.e., black mold, 

dirty mats, etc.). Liberally construing Cossey’s complaint, the Court finds those complaints set 

Case 3:19-cv-00068-KGB Document 14 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

forth an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Bowers, Boyd, 

and Raymond. The Court will serve those defendants by separate order. 

 Cossey lists maintenance supervisor Keith Harrold as a defendant in the case but makes no 

allegations regarding Harrold’s involvement in any violation of his constitutional rights. Rather, 

Cossey states that he sues Harrold because he is the supervisor/assistant jail administrator and a 

member of the jail board. The law is clear that respondeat superior is not a recognized basis for 

§ 1983 liability. See Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309 (8th Cir. 1997). To state a cognizable claim 

against a defendant in a supervisory role, an inmate must allege that the defendant was personally 

involved in the constitutional violation or became aware of the constitutional violation and, with 

deliberate indifference, failed to take corrective action. See, e.g., Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 

1376 (8th Cir. 1993). See Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Liability 

under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of 

rights.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because Cossey makes no allegations with 

respect to Harrold’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations, his claims 

against Harrold should be dismissed without prejudice. 

 Additionally, in his most recent amended complaint, Cossey alleges that non-party officers 

Sterling, Rain, and Potter make verbal threats and inappropriate statements. Doc. No. 12 at 5. 

Insults or threats generally do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Hopson v. 

Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding officer’s use of racial slur and threat 

to knock prisoner’s teeth out was not actionable).3

 The only exception to this rule is when a verbal 

                                                             3 See also McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993) (inmate’s allegations of verbal 

harassment were not actionable under § 1983); O’Donnell v. Thomas, 826 F.2d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 1987) 

(verbal threats and abuse by jail officials insufficient to state a constitutional violation); Black Spotted 

Horse v. Else, 767 F.2d 516, 517 (8th Cir. 1985) (allegation of racially offensive language directed at a 

prisoner does not, by itself, state a constitutional claim). 

Case 3:19-cv-00068-KGB Document 14 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

threat rises to the level of a “wanton act of cruelty” such that the inmate is in fear of “instant and 

unexpected death at the whim of his allegedly bigoted custodians.” Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 

97, 99–100 (8th Cir.1986). Because Cossey’s allegations of verbal abuse do not approach this 

threshold, he does not state an actionable § 1983 claim based on the officers’ verbal remarks. 

 Finally, Cossey requests that his criminal charges be dropped and detainers lifted, 

presumably with respect to the criminal charges he faces in Craighead County. Such relief is not 

appropriate in a § 1983 civil rights case. If release from confinement is sought, the appropriate 

action is a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 once the prisoner has exhausted 

his available remedies in state court. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 499 (1973). To the 

extent Cossey seeks damages and injunctive relief based on allegedly unconstitutional conditions 

in the Craighead County Detention Center, his complaint may proceed as a § 1983 civil rights 

lawsuit. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that Cossey’s claims against Harrold be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is 

further recommended that Cossey’s claims based on verbal threats be dismissed without prejudice 

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

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of May, 2019. 

 

___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:19-cv-00068-KGB Document 14 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 4