Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00070/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00070-3/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 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

CAREY PEDEN PLAINTIFF 

v. No: 3:19-cv-00070 KGB-PSH 

CRAIGHEAD COUNTY JAIL,1 et al. DEFENDANTS 

AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS AND PARTIAL RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following proposed Amended Partial Recommendation has been sent to United States 

District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or 

legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) 

days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of 

fact. 

DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff Carey Peden, a pretrial detainee at the Craighead County Detention Facility, filed 

a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 1).2

 Peden was 

instructed to file an amended complaint describing how each defendant violated his constitutional 

                                                             1

 Because Peden does not name the Craighead County Jail as a defendant in his most recent 

amended complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to remove the jail as a defendant in the style of the 

case. 

2

 Peden’s complaint initially listed two other plaintiffs, and his more recent amended complaints 

list a fourth. A separate civil rights lawsuit was initiated on behalf of each plaintiff. The cases are not 

consolidated at this time. The Court notes that Peden may not assert claims on behalf of his fellow 

inmates. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (“A prisoner cannot bring claims on 

behalf of other prisoners.”).

Case 3:19-cv-00070-KGB Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

rights and how he was injured by each defendant’s actions. See Doc. No. 6. Peden filed an 

amended complaint naming individual defendants and describing most defendants’ actions (Doc. 

No. 8). The Court entered a Partial Recommendation on April 26, 2019, recommending that 

defendant Brown be dismissed as a defendant (Doc. No. 10). Peden then filed another amended 

complaint, on April 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 11). The Partial Recommendation is hereby amended to 

account for additional claims and relief requested in the most recent amended complaint. For the 

reasons described below, the undersigned finds that Peden states claims against defendants Keith 

Bowers, Marty Boyd, T. Raymond, and Keith Harrold but does not state a claim against defendant 

Brown. Additionally, Peden does not state a claim based on verbal insults, and certain relief sought 

by Peden is not available. 

I. Screening Standard 

 Federal law requires courts to screen prisoner complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 1915(e)(2). 

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. § 1915A, 1915(e)(2). Although a complaint requires only a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, the factual allegations set forth 

therein must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘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. . . .”). 

While construed liberally, a pro se complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. 

Case 3:19-cv-00070-KGB Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

II. Analysis 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct of a 

defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured 

by the United States Constitution or by federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The bulk of Peden’s 

complaint concerns the conditions at the Craighead County Detention Center (i.e., black mold, 

dirty mats, etc.). Liberally construing Peden’s complaints, the Court finds those complaints set 

forth an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Bowers, Boyd, 

Raymond, and Harrold. The Court will serve those defendants by separate order. 

 Peden lists maintenance supervisor Brown as a defendant in the case but makes no 

allegations regarding Brown’s involvement in any violation of his constitutional rights. A 

defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he was personally involved in or had direct 

responsibility for the constitutional violation. See Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th 

Cir. 2006) (“Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the 

deprivation of rights.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because Peden makes no 

allegations with respect to Brown, his claims against Brown should be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 In his most recent amended complaint, Peden alleges that non-party officers Sterling, Rain, 

and Potter make verbal threats and inappropriate statements. Doc. No. 11 at 5. Insults or threats 

generally do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 

F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding officer’s use of racial slur and threat to knock prisoner’s 

teeth out was not actionable).3

 The only exception to this rule is when a verbal threat rises to the 

                                                             3 See also McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993) (inmate’s allegations of verbal 

harassment were not actionable under § 1983); O’Donnell v. Thomas, 826 F.2d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 1987) 

(verbal threats and abuse by jail officials insufficient to state a constitutional violation); Black Spotted 

Case 3:19-cv-00070-KGB Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

level of a “wanton act of cruelty” such that the inmate is in fear of “instant and unexpected death 

at the whim of his allegedly bigoted custodians.” Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99–100 (8th 

Cir.1986). Because Peden’s allegations of verbal abuse do not approach this threshold, he does 

not state an actionable § 1983 claim based on the officers’ verbal remarks. 

 Finally, Peden requests that his criminal charges be dropped and detainers lifted, 

presumably with respect to the criminal charges he faces in Craighead County. Such relief is not 

appropriate in a § 1983 civil rights case. If release from confinement is sought, the appropriate 

action is a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 once the prisoner has exhausted 

his available remedies in state court. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 499 (1973). To the 

extent Peden seeks damages and injunctive relief based on allegedly unconstitutional conditions 

in the Craighead County Detention Center, his complaint may proceed as a § 1983 civil rights 

lawsuit. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that Peden’s claims against Brown be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is 

further recommended that Peden’s claims based on verbal threats be dismissed without prejudice 

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

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of May, 2019. 

 

___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

                                                            

Horse v. Else, 767 F.2d 516, 517 (8th Cir. 1985) (allegation of racially offensive language directed at a 

prisoner does not, by itself, state a constitutional claim). 

Case 3:19-cv-00070-KGB Document 12 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 4