Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00338/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00338-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

OTHA BENSON, 

ADC #101648 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-338-KGB-BD

DORALEE CHANDLER, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections: 

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Mr. Benson may file written objections to this Recommendation if he 

disagrees with the findings or conclusions set out in the Recommendation. Objections 

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

To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk 

within 14 days. If no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation 

without independently reviewing the record. If he does not file objections, Mr. Benson

may waive any right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion:

A. Background

Otha Benson, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, filed this 

civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry 

#2) In his complaint, Mr. Benson alleges that Doralee Chandler, General Counsel for the 

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (ASCL), and Wendy Kelly, former Director of the 

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 4 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 4
2

ADC, forwarded his ASCL’s case file to James DePreist, an ADC Assistant Director, 

rather than first providing the file to him. Mr. Benson explains that such conduct was in 

direct violation of a state court order requiring the ASCL to send him information 

concerning blood tests (if any) relevant to his 2003 state criminal conviction. 

According to Mr. Benson, he eventually received a copy of his ASCL file on 

November 30, 2017. He alleges, however, that Defendant Straughn had opened and 

tampered with the file before he had the opportunity to review it. He further alleges that 

certain evidence was missing from the file when he received it.

B. Standard

Before ordering service of process, federal courts must first review prisoner 

complaints that seek relief from a government entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). After assessing such a complaint, the Court must dismiss claims that fail to 

adequately state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). As explained below, Mr. 

Benson’s complaint should not move forward because his allegations, even if true, fail to 

state federal claims for relief. 

C. Access to Courts Claim

Mr. Benson repeatedly asserts that Defendants violated his right to access the 

courts. Even if this is true, impeding an inmate’s access to the courts, standing alone, 

does not add up to a constitutional violation. To state a claim for denial of the right to 

access the courts, a plaintiff must plead facts showing not only that the defendant 

prevented him from litigating a claim, but also, that this misconduct caused the prisoner 

to suffer an actual injury. White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007). To show 

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 4 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 4
3

an actual injury, the prisoner must show that a non-frivolous legal claim was “frustrated 

or . . . impeded.” Id. Here, Mr. Benson has not alleged any actual injury to support his 

claim.

Mr. Benson also claims that Defendant Straughn violated his rights by opening his 

legal mail outside his presence. In this case, however, the correspondence that Mr. 

Benson identifies as legal mail was not, in fact, privileged legal mail. The fact that mail 

from the crime laboratory was opened outside Mr. Benson’s presence is not conduct that 

violated the constitution. Jensen v. Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1182 (8th Cir. 1981) 

(privileged prisoner mail is mail to or from an inmate’s attorney and identified as such).

Furthermore, even if there were an isolated instance of interference with Mr. 

Benson’s legal mail, one occurrence would not support a constitutional claim for relief—

that is, unless there was evidence of an improper motive or if the occurrence interfered

with the right to counsel or the right to access to the courts. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 

427, 430-431 (8th Cir. 1997). Here, Mr. Benson’s allegations to do not indicate that he 

lost a specific claim in a legal proceeding because of Defendant Straughn’s alleged 

interference. 

Finally, a defendant’s violation of a state court order generally will not support a 

federal claim for relief. McClinton v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 166 Fed. Appx. 260 (8th 

Cir. 2006) (citing Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 1996)) and 

Chesterfield Dev. Corp. v. City of Chesterfield, 963 F.2d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 1992)(even 

a “bad faith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law”).

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 4 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 4
4

D. Other Claims

In his complaint, Mr. Benson also states, in conclusory fashion, that Defendants

violated his due process rights, as well as his rights guaranteed by the fifth, eighth, and 

thirteenth amendments. Mr. Benson does not include any facts to support a claim under 

any of these amendments.

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Benson’s claims be DISMISSED, without

prejudice. The Court further recommends that this dismissal count as a “strike” for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that Judge Baker certify that an in forma pauperis

appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith.

DATED, this 6th day of November, 2019.

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 4 Filed 11/06/19 Page 4 of 4