Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00352/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00352-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Caldwell
Plaintiff
Dub Brassell Detention Center
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

TONY CALDWELL,

ADC #009972 PLAINTIFF

v. 5:15CV00352-BRW-JTK

DUB BRASSELL DETENTION CENTER DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

Roy Wilson. 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

1

Case 5:15-cv-00352-BRW Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 5
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 “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

Plaintiff Tony Caldwell is an inmate confined at the W.C. “Dub” Brassell Adult Detention

Center (Jail). He filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Jail, alleging inadequate

medical care and treatment (Doc. No. 2). By Order dated November 16, 2015 (Doc. No. 3), this

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit. However, finding

Plaintiff’s complaint too vague and conclusory to enable the Court to determine whether it was

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, the Court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to amend

his complaint within thirty days. (Id., p. 3) As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended

Complaint.

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. §

2

Case 5:15-cv-00352-BRW Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 5
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 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. 

3

Case 5:15-cv-00352-BRW Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 5
III. Facts and Analysis

In order 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 he was denied adequate medical care at the

Jail. (Doc. No. 2, p. 4). However, as noted in the Court’s November 16, 2015 Order, Plaintiff did

not allege any actions by any individual Defendants, and the sole Defendant – the Jail – is not

considered a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and cannot be sued. See Ketchum

v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that the West Memphis Police

Department and Paramedic Services are departments or subdivisions of the City government and not

separate juridical entities); and Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that

police and sheriff’s departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit).

In the November 16, 2015 Order granting Plaintiff the opportunity to submit an Amended

Complaint, the Court offered directions that Plaintiff name the parties he wishes to sue and provide

specific facts against each named defendant (Doc. No. 3, p.4). However, because Plaintiff failed to

submit an Amended Complaint to allege facts against anyone other than the Jail, the Court finds the

Complaint should be dismissed, for failure to state a claim upon which 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

4

Case 5:15-cv-00352-BRW Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 5
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 21st day of December, 2015.

____________________________________

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.

5

Case 5:15-cv-00352-BRW Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 5