Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00578/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00578-0/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 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 WESTERN DIVISION 

CHARLES MOORE, JR., PLAINTIFF 

ADC #129374 

v. 4:19CV00578-BSM-JTK 

WENDY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District 

Judge Brian S. Miller. 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. 

Case 4:19-cv-00578-BSM Document 6 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

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 Charles Moore is a state inmate confined at the Ouachita River Unit of the 

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), who filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

against numerous Defendants (Doc. No. 1). By Order dated September 16, 2019, this 

Court granted Plaintiff=s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to submit 

an Amended Complaint within thirty days, finding he failed to state a constitutional claim 

for relief. (Doc. No. 5) As of this date, Plaintiff has not submitted an Amended Complaint. 

Case 4:19-cv-00578-BSM Document 6 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 5
3 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds it should be dismissed, 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). 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. § 

Case 4:19-cv-00578-BSM Document 6 Filed 10/22/19 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 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). Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that Defendants committed 

several improper acts against a fellow inmate, Rickey Ashley, but Plaintiff did not allege 

any constitutional violations committed against him. In the September 16, 2019 Order, the 

Court noted that the Complaint did not mention or refer to Plaintiff, and provided him 

information he should include in an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 5, pp. 3-4) However, 

since Plaintiff did not submit an Amended Complaint in accordance with that Order, the 

Court finds that the Complaint should be dismissed, for failure to state a claim upon which 

Case 4:19-cv-00578-BSM Document 6 Filed 10/22/19 Page 4 of 5
5 

relief may be granted. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s 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 22nd day of October, 2019. 

_________________________________ 

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 4:19-cv-00578-BSM Document 6 Filed 10/22/19 Page 5 of 5