Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00294/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00294-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

CLARENCE ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #165441 

v. 3:19CV00294-KGB-JTK 

GRAY, 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 before the District Judge (if such a 

Hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the 

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

District Judge 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 hearing 

before the District Judge. 

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

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

Mail your objections and AStatement 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 

Plaintiff Clarence Anderson filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action while incarcerated at 

the Craighead County Detention Center (Jail), alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement 

(Doc. No. 2). By Order dated December 3, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff=s Motion to Proceed 

in forma pauperis and directed him to submit an Amended Complaint within thirty days, noting 

that he did not include specific allegations against any of the named Defendants. (Doc. No. 7) 

Although Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, he again failed to include specific 

allegations against any of the Defendants and on December 20, 2019, the Court permitted him one 

final opportunity to submit a second amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. No. 9) As of this 

date, Plaintiff has not submitted a second Amended Complaint. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds it should be dismissed, 

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

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

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). 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). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of 

the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 

(1992). 

Additionally, to survive a court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) 

screening, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 570. 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

alleged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. 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. 

III. Facts and Analysis 

To support a claim for relief against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff 

must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived him of some Constitutional 

right. Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al., 835 F.Supp. 1114, 1118 (E.D.MO 

1993). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff named three individuals as Defendants: Nurses 

Grey, Hall, and Randal. (Doc. No. 8, pp. 1-2) He alleged the nurses failed to provide proper 

antibiotic treatment after he was bitten by another inmate. (Id., p. 4) He also alleged a lack of 

sanitary dispensers, improper placement with a felon, and exposure to water containing bodily 

waste and urine. (Id.) 

Plaintiff stated in his Amended Complaint that he was incarcerated as a convicted inmate; 

therefore, the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard applies. White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 

120, 121 (8th Cir. 1993). “Conditions of confinement, however, constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment ‘only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a 

single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise.’” Whitnack v. Douglas County, 

16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991)). Conditions 

which “deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” may be considered 

cruel and unusual, and therefore, unconstitutional. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 

(1981). “Although the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bars 

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

more than physical torture, ‘discomfort compelled by conditions of confinement, without more, 

does not violate the amendment.’” Martin v. Byrd, No. 4:07cv01184SWW, 2008 WL 686936 * 4 

(E.D.Ark.2008) (quoting Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783, 787 (2d Cir. 1984) (other citations 

omitted.)) 

Plaintiff’s allegations against the nurses, for failing to provide him an antibiotic, do not rise 

to the level of a Constitutional claim and instead, focus on his disagreement over the type of 

medical treatment he received. The Aprisoner must show more than negligence, more even than 

gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation.@ Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). See also 

Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that a mere disagreement with 

a course of medical treatment is insufficient to state a claim for relief under the Eighth 

Amendment). 

In addition, his allegation of being housed with a felon, without more, does not state an 

Eighth Amendment claim for relief, and his allegation about exposure to waste for five days also 

is not sufficiently specific to support a claim. He does not specify how he was exposed or how he 

was harmed, and therefore, alleges merely “discomfort.” See Martin v. Byrd, *4. Finally, he did 

not allege the “deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.” Whitnack, 16 F.3d at 957 (other 

citations omitted). 

Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to submit a second Amended Complaint to clarify his 

allegations against Defendants, the Court finds the Amended Complaint should be dismissed, for 

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

IV. Conclusion

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED without 

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

2. Dismissal of this action constitute a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and 

Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 2020. 

_________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 1

The statute provides that a prisoner may not file an in forma pauperis civil rights action 

or appeal if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an action or appeal that was 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Case 3:19-cv-00294-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 6