Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00814/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00814-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL ANTHONY PRUITT PLAINTIFF

v. 4:16CV00814-BSM-JJV

C. WILLIAMS, Lieutenant, White 

County Detention Center; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District

Judge Brian S. Miller. 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

1

Case 4:16-cv-00814-BSM Document 11 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 5
not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

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 nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

Fromthis 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

Michael Pruitt (“Plaintiff”) and two other plaintiffs filed this action pro se and

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) They allege Defendants violated his First

Amendment rights with regard to the free exercise of religion. (Id. at 4.) On December 13,

2016, I notified Plaintiff that his Complaint was devoid of facts and failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No.7.) I suggested dismissal would be likely and

offered him a chance to amend within thirty days. (Id.) 

On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff requested additional time to “submit an appeal for this

case” but I denied that Motion because there had been no appealable order filed. (Doc. No.

9.) Nevertheless, I extended the time for Plaintiff to choose whether or not he wanted to file

an Amended Complaint until February 1, 2017. (Id.) The time has expired for Plaintiff to

file an Amended Complaint and he has filed nothing. So after careful consideration of

2

Case 4:16-cv-00814-BSM Document 11 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff’s Complaint, for the following reasons, I conclude this cause of action should be

dismissed 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. § 1915A(b).

An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is

appearing pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See

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

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 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, frequentlymade sua sponte before the defendant has even been

asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a fact-finding process for the resolution of disputed

facts.” Id.

3

Case 4:16-cv-00814-BSM Document 11 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 5
III. ANALYSIS

The Complaint makes six allegations but only one pertains to Mr. Pruitt. (Doc. No.

1 at 4-5.) The relevant allegation only says, “On Oct. 30 2016 we . . . were forcefully denied

our religion as a form of punishment by Ms. Crenshaw, Lt. Williams, Corporal Donnell . .

. ” (Id. at 4.) Although I am always concerned about any allegation stating jailers denied an

inmate the right to practice their religion, this allegation wholly fails to state sufficient facts

about how Defendants Crenshaw, Williams and Donnell actually violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. Without more, these allegations simply fail to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570 (a plaintiff must plead “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). If Plaintiff has additional facts

to offer that would support an allegation these Defendants violated his constitutional rights,

he should state them in his objections to this Recommended Disposition. 

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) 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” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).1

1Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that: “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 . . . .”

4

Case 4:16-cv-00814-BSM Document 11 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 5
3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma

pauperis appeal fromanyOrder adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good

faith. 

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017. 

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

5

Case 4:16-cv-00814-BSM Document 11 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 5