Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00048/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00048-0/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 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DEWAYNE HASTINGS 

ADC # 110772 

v. 2:15-cv-48-DPM-JJV 

BOBBY MAY, Sheriff, St. Francis County 

Sheriff Department; GLEN RAMSEY, Captain, 

St. Francis County Sheriff Department; 

PLAINTIFF 

and J. R. KERSERY, Detective, CID Division, 

St. Francis County Sheriff Department DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

1. Hastings brings this action alleging that his constitutional rights were 

violated when, at the time of his arrest, the defendants May, Ramsey and 

Kersery, took a DNA sample from him. He claims that the sample violated 

both his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Hastings also alleges that the 

defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they maced him for 

questioning their methods. The Court must screen Hastings's Complaint. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

2. Hastings says that he is a Jehovah's Witness and that the DNA sample 

violated his Free Exercise rights. Hastings does not explain how the DNA 

sample violates his religious beliefs. To proceed with this claim, Hastings 

must file an amended complaint by 20 July 2015 that states specifically how 

his religious beliefs were violated by the DNA sample. A failure to do so will 

Case 2:15-cv-00048-DPM Document 4 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 3
result in the dismissal of this claim without prejudice. 

3. Hastings alleges that taking the sample violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights because it was not taken solely for the purpose of 

identification but purposefully taken to investigate past, unsolved crimes. 

This claim also fails as a rna tter of law. A suspect's criminal history is part of 

his identity. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958,1971 (2013). In comparing DNA 

evidence to other forms of identification, the King decision specifically 

referenced the validity of comparing an arrestee's fingerprints against 

"electronic databases of known criminals and unsolved crimes." 133 S. Ct. 

at 1972. 

4. Hastings also claims that the defendants didn't possess the medical 

expertise to administer the DNA sample and that the sample wasn't handled 

properly after collection. This claim fails. There is no constitutional or 

statutory requirement that an individual conducting a DNA swab possess any 

certain degree of medical expertise. Additionally, Hastings' allegation that the 

sample may have been spoiled by improper handling is speculative. 

5. Hastings's allegation that someone will tamper with the sample in 

order to falsely charge him with crimes he did not commit fails to state a 

claim. It is based entirely on Hastings's subjective fears, and there's been no 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-00048-DPM Document 4 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 3
allegation of actual tampering. 

6. Hastings has, however, stated an excessive force claim under the 

Eighth Amendment based on defendants' allegedly unprovoked use of mace. 

That claim will be allowed to proceed. But his First and Fourth Amendment 

claims are dismissed without prejudice. 

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare and issue summons for 

defendants May, Ramsey, and Kersery without prepayment of fees and 

security. A copy of this order and Hastings' complaint should be included 

with the summons. 

So Ordered. 

D. P. Marshall f{ 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-00048-DPM Document 4 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 3