Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00133/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00133-1/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CANDY KING PLAINTIFF 

ADC #756324 

v. No: 3:24-cv-00133-BSM-PSH 

P. MALOTT, et al.1

 DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge 

Brian S. Miller. 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 Candy King filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

on July 29, 2024, while incarcerated at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s 

1

 King does not list Patricia Secord or William Straughn as defendants in her 

second amended complaint (Doc. No. 10). The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to 

terminate these defendants on the docket sheet for this case. 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-BSM Document 12 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

McPherson Unit (Doc. No. 1). She subsequently filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and an amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 2-3). The Court granted King in 

forma pauperis status and directed her to file a second amended complaint that 

described how her constitutional rights were violated, how the named defendants 

were personally involved in any alleged violations of her rights, and how she was 

injured as a result of the alleged constitutional violations (Doc. No. 8). King was 

informed that only claims properly set out in her second amended complaint would 

be allowed to proceed. Id. King subsequently filed a second amended complaint 

(Doc. No. 10). For the reasons stated herein, King’s claims should be dismissed for 

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

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 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-BSM Document 12 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

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. In her second amended complaint, King alleges that defendant 

Sergeant P. Malott threatened to kick her during a strip search and made disparaging 

remarks to her about her odor. Doc. No. 10 at 4-5. King’s claims should be 

dismissed, as explained below. 

Claims on Behalf of Other Inmates. King originally sued on behalf of several 

other inmates whom she claims were also verbally harassed by Malott.2

 See Doc. 

Nos. 1, 3. She lists one other plaintiff, Kristi Richter, as a plaintiff in this case. Doc. 

No. 10 at 1. To the extent King sues on behalf of another inmate, her claims are 

2

 Separate lawsuits were opened on behalf of each inmate that signed King’s 

original complaint. See Cristobal v. Malott, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-131, and Richter v. 

Malott, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-132. Those cases have since been dismissed based on 

the plaintiffs’ failure to pay the full filing fees or file complete applications to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-BSM Document 12 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

subject to dismissal. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.3d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (“A 

prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.”). 

Verbal Threats. King’s claims against Malott are subject to dismissal because 

they are solely based on verbal threats and insults, which 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 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).4

 Because King’s allegations of 

verbal abuse do not approach this threshold, she does not state an actionable 1983 

claim based on Malott’s verbal remarks. 

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).

4

 In Burton, the plaintiff alleged that defendant pointed a revolver at plaintiff, 

cocked it, and threatened to shoot him while using racial epithets just after the plaintiff 

had testified about another guard’s actions in a hearing on his § 1983 suit. 791 F.2d at 

100. 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-BSM Document 12 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: 

 1. King’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of 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 the order adopting this recommendation and accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November, 2024. 

 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-BSM Document 12 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 5