Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00203/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00203-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

TOMMY RADFORD PLAINTIFF 

ADC #089900 

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00203-JM-BBM 

JARED BYERS, Warden, 

Ouachita River Unit, et al., DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to 

United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. 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 the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file 

objections, Judge Moody may adopt this Recommendation without independently 

reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to 

appeal questions of fact. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff Tommy Radford (“Radford”), an inmate currently 

incarcerated in the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a 

pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc 1). Radford alleges he was subjected 

to a serious risk of harm that Defendants ignored—unsuitable drinking water—and 

deliberate difference to serious medical needs—painful mouth sores caused by the water. 

Id. at 1. 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 9
2 

After Radford demonstrated his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 

conducted an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (“PLRA”) and noted some deficiencies.1

 (Doc. 5). Radford was given leave to file an 

Amended Complaint, but he has failed to do so. Id. Accordingly, the Court will proceed 

with screening. 

II. ALLEGATIONS 

Radford sues Ouachita River Unit Warden Jared Byers (“Byers”), Dentist J. Nunn 

(“Nunn”), Maximum Security Unit (“MSU”) Maintenance Treatment Supervisor 

Montgomery (“Montgomery”), MSU Warden J. Ball (“Ball”), and ADC Deputy Director 

Straughn (“Straughn”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in their personal and official 

capacities. (Doc. 1 at 1–2). Radford was transferred to the MSU on or around September 

16, 2016, and assigned to restrictive housing. Id. at 4. Radford asserts that, for the fourand-a-half to five years that he was in the MSU, he was “compel[ed] to drink, bathe, and 

utilize [] contaminated rust-looking water that discolored [his] laundry and . . . caused ulcer 

sores inside [his] mouth.” Id. 

Radford states that he grieved to Ball, who responded that the water was tested and 

was safe to drink. Id. at 5. Then, around June 20, 2017, Radford first developed mouth 

sores. Id. Radford continued to complain to Ball and Montgomery for several months. Id. 

1

 The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a 

governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a 

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the 

factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 9
3 

He also wrote sick-call requests to Nunn. Id. Radford asserts that, over the years, he lost 

weight and teeth and suffered pain as a result of his condition. Id. 

He claims that he wrote grievances, sick-call forms, and medical/dental requests to 

Ball, Byers, Straughn and Nunn, to no avail. Id. Radford attached two grievances to the 

Complaint. Id. at 5, 8–9. 

In the first grievance, Radford complained that the rust-colored water caused his 

stomach to ache. Id. at 8. Byers noted that monthly testing showed the water was “in 

compliance with federal and state law” and found the grievance to be without merit. Id. 

In the second grievance, Radford complained that he had bleeding gums and pain 

every time he consumed the rust-colored water. Id. at 9. Straughn denied the appeal, also 

noting that the water was “tested according to the Health Department regulations every 

month...[and] in compliance with federal and state law.” Id. Although Radford does not 

attach his grievance to Ball, he alleges that Ball also responded that “the water is tested and 

safe.” Id. at 5. 

According to Radford, he was deprived medical treatment as late as October 2, 

2020, and, as of February 27, 2024, was still suffering from pain and mouth sores. Id. He 

seeks monetary damages and sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. 

(Doc. 1 at 2, 6).

III. DISCUSSION 

To survive pre-service screening under the PLRA, a “complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[L]abels and conclusions,” a 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 9
4 

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertions devoid 

of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. Id. Further, 

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). However, “[a] pro 

se complaint must be liberally construed,” and courts “should construe the complaint in a 

way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal 

framework.” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014) 

(cleaned up; citations omitted); Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) 

(citation omitted). 

Liberally construing Radford’s Complaint, he asserts that Defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and conditions of confinement. 

However, he fails to state a plausible claim for relief, and it is recommended that his 

Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs 

Radford asserts that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs in connection with the ulcers in his mouth. To plead a plausible inadequate-medicalcare claim under the Eighth Amendment, there must be facts suggesting: (1) Plaintiff had 

an objectively serious need for medical care; and (2) Defendants subjectively knew of, but 

deliberately disregarded, that serious medical need. See Shipp v. Murphy, 9 F.4th 694, 703 

(8th Cir. 2021); Barr v. Pearson, 909 F.3d 919, 921 (8th Cir. 2018). As to the second 

element, deliberate indifference is a high threshold that goes well beyond negligence or 

gross negligence. Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1179 (8th Cir. 2023); Langford v. Norris, 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 9
5 

614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010). To establish deliberate indifference, there must be facts 

suggesting Defendants “recognized that a substantial risk of harm existed and knew that 

their conduct was inappropriate in light of that risk.” Shipp, 9 F.4th at 703 (emphasis in the 

original); Smith v. Lisenbe, 73 F.4th 596, 600 (8th Cir. 2023). A mere disagreement with 

the course of medical care does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Langford, 

614 F.3d at 460; Barr, 909 F.3d at 921–22. 

Radford states that he: (1) wrote a grievance to Ball; (2) orally complained to Ball 

and Montgomery “for several months”; (3) wrote sick-call requests to Nunn; and (4) wrote 

“grievances, sick-call forms, [and] medical/dental requests to...Byers...and Straughn.” 

(Doc. 1 at 5). All to no avail. Id. at 5. 

Notwithstanding, Radford fails to state an inadequate-medical-care claim against 

Ball and Montgomery because his Complaint is devoid of any allegation that Radford ever 

informed them about his mouth sores. See (Doc. 1 at 5). Instead, Radford vaguely states 

that he wrote a grievance to Ball and then complained to Ball and Montgomery for several 

months. Id. Other than Ball’s response that “the water is tested and safe to drink,” there is 

no allegation regarding the contents of the grievance or his complaints. Accordingly, there 

is no allegation that either Ball or Montgomery was aware of Radford’s alleged serious 

medical need. 

Radford’s allegations against Nunn are not any more illuminating. Radford merely 

states that he submitted sick-call requests to her. (Doc. 1 at 5). This bare assertion lacks 

“further factual enhancement” and is insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(citation omitted). 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 9
6 

Because Radford attaches his grievances to Byers and Straughn, his allegations 

against them are slightly stronger. In his grievance to Byers, Radford complained that the 

water was causing him to throw up and have stomach pain. (Doc. 1 at 8). Byers responded 

that the water was tested and complied with law. Id. Similarly, Radford complained to 

Straughn that the water was causing him pain, mouth sores, and to lose teeth. Id. at 9. 

Straughn responded that the water was tested and complied with law. Id. Radford’s 

grievances contain no complaint of being denied medical care. Id. at 8–9. 

Byers’s and Straughn’s mere participation in the grievance procedure is not enough 

to state an inadequate-medical-care claim against them. See Rowe v. Norris, 198 F. App’x 

579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding prison official’s limited involvement of denying 

grievances “was insufficient to impose liability on him.”). Radford does not plead that 

Byers or Straughn personally denied him medical care, authorized others to ignore his 

medical needs, or looked the other way when others ignored Radford’s serious medical 

needs. See Est. of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37–38 (8th Cir. 1995) 

(affirming dismissal of inadequate-medical-care claim against warden and associate 

warden where plaintiff did not allege their “contact in fact with the plaintiff, nor even an 

explicit charge of inadequate training or supervision of subordinates”); see also Obama v. 

Burl, 477 F. App'x 409, 411 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of inadequate-medicalcare claim against prison officials where plaintiff “did not allege that he was denied medical 

treatment recommended by medical personnel”). As such, Radford has not established that 

Byers or Straughn were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs through the 

grievance procedure or otherwise. 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 9
7 

In sum, as pleaded, Radford’s Complaint does not establish that any Defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The Court recommends that Radford’s 

inadequate-medical-care claims be dismissed without prejudice. 

B. Conditions of Confinement 

Radford also fails to establish that any Defendant acted with deliberate indifference 

to his conditions of confinement. Like the standard for inadequate medical care, the Eighth 

Amendment standard for conditions of confinement is whether the defendants acted with 

deliberate indifference. Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 583 F.3d 522, 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc). There is both an objective component and a subjective component to a claim of 

deliberate indifference, which questions: (1) whether a substantial risk to the inmate’s 

safety existed, and (2) whether the official had knowledge of the substantial risk to the 

inmate’s safety but nevertheless disregarded it. Id. at 529. The subjective component 

requires that the official was both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and he must also draw the inference. Stewart 

v. Precythe, 91 F.4th 944, 949 (8th Cir. 2024). 

Here, Radford alleges that the water at MSU created a substantial risk of harm to 

his health. However, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that no Defendant 

subjectively believed that the water was harmful to Radford. The ADC officials—Ball, 

Montgomery, Byers, and Straughn—all believed the water was safe to drink based on the 

results of monthly testing. (Doc. 1 at 5, 8–9). Thus, even if the water posed a substantial 

risk of harm to Radford, the prison officials did not draw that inference, and he fails to state 

a claim against them. See Doering v. Kelley, No. 2:19-CV-00045-JM-JJV, 2020 WL 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 9
8 

6073252, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 25, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 

6064791 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 14, 2020) (holding no evidence prison officials were subjectively 

aware of and deliberately indifferent to any risk of harm where officials routinely had their 

drinking water tested by health department). And Radford’s vague claim that he submitted 

sick calls to the only remaining Defendant, Nunn, cannot fairly be read to state a 

conditions-of-confinement claim against her. 

Resultantly, as pleaded, Radford’s Complaint does not establish that any Defendant 

was deliberately indifferent to his conditions of confinement. The Court recommends that 

Radford’s conditions-of-confinement claims be dismissed without prejudice. 

C. Official-Capacity Claims 

Radford sues Defendants in their official capacities. (Doc. 1 at 2). Because he seeks 

only monetary damages, the ADC officials are entitled to sovereign immunity. Kruger v. 

Nebraska, 820 F.3d 295, 301 (8th Cir. 2016). Regardless, his official-capacity claims fail 

for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 

1067, n.3 (8th Cir. 2014). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

After careful consideration, the Court finds that Radford’s Complaint fails to state 

any plausible claims for relief. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Radford’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for 

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

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 8 of 9
9 

2. The Court RECOMMEND that the dismissal count as a “strike” for the 

purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good 

faith. 

 DATED this 2nd day of December, 2024. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:24-cv-00203-JM Document 7 Filed 12/02/24 Page 9 of 9