Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06059/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06059-0/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 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 HOT SPRINGS DIVISION 

KEITHES MONTEL JONES PLAINTIFF 

v. Civil No. 6:24-CV-06059-SOH-MEF 

 

NURSE GOODMAN, Ouachita River Correctional Unit, 

Arkansas Division of Correction DEFENDANT 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, Keithes Montel Jones, a prisoner at the Ouachita River Correctional Unit 

(“ORCU”), Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed the above-captioned civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds pro se. Pursuant to the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States 

District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purposes of making a Report and 

Recommendation. 

This Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

(ECF No. 6). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the 

Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Upon that review and for the reasons outlined below, this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be dismissed as time barred. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that between September 18, 2018, to October 20, 2018, he was in his cell 

at the ORCU when Defendant Nurse Goodman “stormed in the barracks” and told him that if he 

did not come out of his cell for her to administer a shot, she would call the guards to forcibly 

Case 6:24-cv-06059-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

administer it. (ECF No. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff says he agreed to leave his cell and allowed Defendant 

Goodman to administer the shot because he did not want to receive any disciplinary charges. Id., 

p. 5. But Plaintiff contends that when he exited his cell, Defendant Goodman administered more 

than the “legal limit” of the flu vaccine to his left side. Id. Plaintiff says that he experienced a 

negative reaction to the vaccine—his jaw and other joints “locked up” and he started foaming at 

the mouth. Id. Plaintiff also contends that the flu vaccine damaged his brain and that he has been 

hearing voices in his head ever since. Id. Plaintiff identifies Defendant Goodman in her personal 

capacity only. Id. He requests compensatory damages in the amount of $200,000,000. Id. at p. 

9. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains 

claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). 

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A pro se complaint, moreover, must be 

liberally construed, meaning “that if the essence of an allegation is discernable, even though it is 

not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that 

permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Stone v. 

Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004). However, “they still must allege sufficient facts to 

Case 6:24-cv-06059-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

support the claims advanced.” Id. at 914 (citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 

1989)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff fails to specifically assert any cause of action. Instead, Plaintiff states he was 

“forced to take medication.” (ECF No. 1, p. 4). Recognizing that pro se complaints are to be 

liberally construed, this Court views Plaintiff’s claim as asserting that he was forced to take 

medication in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment. As there is no direct cause of action under the United States Constitution, this Court 

further construes Plaintiff’s Complaint to allege a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 

Quality Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. City of Spencer, 908 F.Supp. 1471, 1487 n.9 (N.D. Iowa 

1995) (“There is simply no direct cause of action arising out of the Constitution itself against 

municipal officials for alleged constitutional violations.”). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right 

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged 

deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). Section 1983 itself does not include a specific statute of limitations period. 

Instead, “§ 1983 claims accruing within a particular state are to be governed by that state’s general 

personal-injury statute of limitations.” Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 

(8th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff says that the incident that gives rise to his claims took place at the 

ORCU in Malvern, Arkansas from September 18, 2018, to October 20, 2018. (ECF No. 1, p. 4). 

In Arkansas, the general personal-injury statute of limitations is three years. Id.; see also Miller 

v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (Arkansas three-year personal injury statute of 

Case 6:24-cv-06059-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

limitations applies to § 1983 actions). 

In this case, Plaintiff describes only one instance where Defendant Goodman administered 

an incorrect dosage of the flu vaccine, causing him injury. (ECF No. 1). Although he claims the 

facts giving rise to his claim occurred “between September 18, 2018, to October 20, 2018,” he 

fails to assert any specific date for the occurrence. In any event, even if the factual predicate of 

Plaintiff’s claims occurred on October 20, 2018, Plaintiff’s claims still fall well outside the threeyear statute of limitations period. 

Arkansas’s so-called savings statute, furthermore, does not save Plaintiff’s claims. 

Pursuant to that statute, “[i]f any action is commenced within the time ... prescribed ... and the 

plaintiff suffers a nonsuit ... the plaintiff may commence a new action within (1) one year after the 

nonsuit.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126. Here, however, Plaintiff does not claim that he first 

initiated this lawsuit within the three-year statute of limitations period, but the case was later 

dismissed without reaching a decision on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint should 

be dismissed without prejudice as time barred. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, 

Plaintiff is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and thus, the Clerk is DIRECTED to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case 

for future judicial consideration. 

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

Case 6:24-cv-06059-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/10/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. 

STATUS OF REFERRAL: NO LONGER REFERRED 

DATED this 10th day of May 2024. 

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 6:24-cv-06059-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/10/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>