Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00054/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00054-0/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM EARL RING, III PLAINTIFF 

v. 1:19-cv-00054-KGB-JJV 

ALBERT ROORK, Sheriff, 

Fulton County; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

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

Kristine G. Baker. 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 1:19-cv-00054-KGB Document 6 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 4
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 

 William Earl Ring, III (“Plaintiff”) is confined in the Fulton County Jail. He has filed a 

pro se Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional 

rights. (Doc. No. 2.) After careful review of the Complaint, I find it should be dismissed without 

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

II. SCREENING 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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). 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.” 

Case 1:19-cv-00054-KGB Document 6 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

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, 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 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). 

III. ANALYSIS

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Fulton County Sheriff Albert Roork, Chief 

Deputy John Cawvey, and Jail Administrator Joann Cunningham violated his constitutional rights 

when they failed to return $40 he had when he was booked into the Fulton County Jail, on a prior 

charge, in October of 2018. (Doc. No. 2.) 

 A prisoner cannot bring a ' 1983 due process claim for the intentional or negligent loss of 

personal property, as long as the State provides a post-deprivation remedy to address the loss. See 

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-6 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). Arkansas 

provides such a post-deprivation remedy by allowing Plaintiff to file a conversion action, in state 

court, against the individuals who allegedly took or lost his money. See Bausley v. Dugan, Case 

No. 04-2642, 2004 WL 2291373 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2004) (unpublished decision); Carniglia v. 

Dearmon, Case No. 01-1852, 2001 WL 878347 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2001). Because Plaintiff has an 

adequate post-deprivation remedy available to him in state court, he has not pled a viable due 

process claim. Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without 

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

Case 1:19-cv-00054-KGB Document 6 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

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. 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

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

appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would 

not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 25th day of July 2019. 

 ___________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

1 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 1:19-cv-00054-KGB Document 6 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 4