Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00094/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00094-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

AARON SMITH PLAINTIFF 

 

V. CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00094 JM 

LARRY CRANE, et al. DEFENDANTS 

 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Aaron Smith, in custody at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed a 

pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights 

(Doc. Nos. 2, 7). He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted 

(Doc. Nos. 1, 5). 

I. Screening 

Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e), and prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or 

employee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. § 1915(e); 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

A claim is legally frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). 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 (1957), 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 

Case 4:20-cv-00094-JM Document 8 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 4
2

‘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. . . . 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. Background 

 Smith sued Pulaski County Circuit Court Clerk Larry Crane, Pulaski County Sheriff 

Eric Higgins, and the Jacksonville, Arkansas, Police Department. (Doc. No. 2). He claims 

his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested and jailed for violating a no 

contact order that had been dismissed in 2016 by Judge Barry Sims. (Id. at 4). He attached 

the Order to Dismiss No Contact Order to his Complaint. (Id. at 6). In a supplement to his 

Complaint, Smith explains: “the charges that I am now on are in fact the same no contact 

order that I am talking about.” (Doc. No. 7 at 4). He seeks damages for the alleged 

violation of his rights. (Doc. No. 2 at 14). 

III. Discussion 

Smith is currently in custody in the Pulaski County Detention Center awaiting trial 

on pending criminal charges, including violation of the protective order he asserts was 

dismissed in 2016. (Doc. No. 2 at 3-4; Doc. No. 7 at 4); State v. Smith, 60CR-20-244. In 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal courts 

Case 4:20-cv-00094-JM Document 8 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 4
3

should abstain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings. The Court explained the 

rationale for such abstention as follows: 

[The concept of federalism] represent[s] . . . a system in which there is 

sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, 

and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate 

and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in 

ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States. 

 

Id. at 44. 

 Accordingly, a federal court must abstain from entertaining constitutional claims 

when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the state proceeding implicates 

important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings 

to raise the constitutional challenges. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 602 

(8th Cir. 1999); Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Riney, 21 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 1994). If all 

three questions are answered affirmatively, a federal court should abstain unless it detects 

“bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 

abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 

457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). 

 Smith is involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and Arkansas has an 

important interest in its criminal justice procedures. As such, the Court should abstain 

from entertaining Smith’s constitutional claims. Further, there is no indication of bad faith, 

harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 

inappropriate. 

 Having determined that the Court should abstain from entertaining Smith’s claims, 

it must decide whether to dismiss, or to stay, the case. Where only injunctive or equitable 

Case 4:20-cv-00094-JM Document 8 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

relief is sought, dismissal is appropriate. Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 

475, 481 (8th Cir. 1998). Smith, however, seeks damages. Accordingly, Smith’s case is 

stayed and administratively terminated. Stroud, 179 F.3d at 603-04. As such, Smith’s 

pending motion for preliminary injunction will be denied, without prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion 

1. Smith’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 3) is denied without 

prejudice. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to stay and administratively terminate this 

proceeding pending final disposition of Smith’s state criminal charges. 

 3. Smith may file a motion to reopen this case after such final disposition. 

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

pauperis appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2020. 

 

 ________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 4:20-cv-00094-JM Document 8 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4