Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00076/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00076-0/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 

ANGELO BLAKELY, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #136684 

v. 4:20-cv-00076-BRW-JJV 

LACRETIA FLOWERS, Lieutenant, 

Faulkner County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy 

Roy Wilson. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections 

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection 

is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your 

objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United 

States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and 

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Angelo Blakely (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the North Central Unit of the Arkansas 

Division of Correction (“ADC”). He has filed a pro se Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging Defendants Lieutenant Flowers, Sergeant Page, and Officer Goodwin violated his 

constitutional rights while he was in the Faulkner County Detention Center (“FCDC”). (Doc. No. 

2.) For the following reasons, I recommend the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for 

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

II. SCREENING 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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 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. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(A)(b). 

An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual allegations must be weighted in favor of Plaintiff. Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “In other words, the ' 1915(d) frivolousness determination, 

frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot 

serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed facts.” Id. But regardless of whether 

a plaintiff is represented or appearing pro se, his “complaint must contain specific facts supporting 

its conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks 

for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads 

facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between 

possibility and plausibility” of entitlement to relief. Id. at 557. 

Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983 allows an individual to bring suit against 

persons who, under color of state law, have caused him to be “depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, 

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (1996). 

Section 1983 itself “creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivation of 

rights established elsewhere.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985) (citations 

omitted). In order to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of 

state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

III. ANALYSIS

In his Complaint, Plaintiff says he was arrested on a parole violation on November 9 or 10, 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

2018 and booked into the FCDC. (Doc. No. 2.) On November 20, 2018, he signed an unspecified 

“document” agreeing to his parole being revoked for ninety days with the sentence to be served in 

the FCDC. (Id.at 4.) On February 20, 2019, which was the end of the ninety-day period, Plaintiff 

was not released from the FCDC. (Id.) Instead, he was transferred to the ADC. (Id.) Plaintiff 

believes Defendants revoked his parole, without affording him a hearing or any due process rights, 

because they wrongfully concluded he was involved in a fight between inmates that occurred at 

the FCDC in January of 2019. (Id.) 

 Parolees are entitled to due process rights, such as notice and a hearing, in connection with 

the revocation of their parole. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972); Newmy v. Johnson, 

758 F.3d 1008, 1010-12 (8th Cir. 2014). However, Plaintiff cannot bring that due process claim 

in this § 1983 action. A “prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact 

or duration of his confinement.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2006); see also Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Instead, such a claim can only be brought in a habeas action, 

after a prisoner has exhausted his available remedies in state court. (Id.) Importantly, this holding 

applies when a prisoner seeks damages or other forms of equitable relief (instead of directly asking 

for immediate release) if a holding in his favor in the § 1983 action would “necessarily imply the 

invalidity” of his current confinement. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82; Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

Specifically, the United States Supreme Court has explained: 

a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the 

relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s 

suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success 

in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 

duration. 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81–82 (parenthetical phrases in the original).1

 The Court has emphasized 

the “need to ensure that state prisoners use only habeas corpus (or similar state) remedies when 

they seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an injunction 

compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies 

the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Id. at 81. 

 Success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim here, i.e., that Defendants violated his due process 

rights when they revoked his parole, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement in 

the ADC. Thus, he must bring that claim in a habeas proceeding, after exhausting all available 

state remedies, and not in a § 1983 action. See Newmy, 758 F.3d at 1012 (due process challenges 

to parole revocation proceedings must be brought in habeas petition, and not in a § 1983 action);

Boles v. Triggs, case no. 4:18-cv-00225-SWW, 2018 WL 4016981 (E.D. Ark. Jul. 11, 2018) 

(unpublished opinion) (same); Campbell v. Williams, case no. 5:10-cv-00312-SWW, 2011 WL 

1576367 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 26, 2011) (unpublished opinion) (same), summarily aff’d, 11-2140 (8th 

Cir. Aug. 15, 2011). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The Complaint (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 

1

 In Wilkinson, the Court concluded the prisoners could proceed, in a § 1983 action, with their due 

process challenges to Ohio’s state parole procedures because a ruling in their favor would not 

necessarily imply the invalidity of their confinement. There, the prisoners were being held in 

prison on valid criminal convictions, which were not being challenged directly or indirectly in 

their § 1983 action. Thus, if they prevailed on their due process claims, the prisoners would be 

entitled to new parole procedures but not release from custody. Id. at 82. 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2

3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from an Order adopting this recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not 

be taken in good faith. 

DATED this 24th day of January 2020. 

 

___________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

2

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides as follows: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action 

or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or 

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in 

a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-BRW Document 4 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 6