Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01046/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Earl Smith
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

JAMES EARL SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-1046

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

James Earl Smith brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith

does not name any defendants in this action. (Doc. 1.) The court granted plaintiff's in forma

pauperis (IFP) application, and the matter is now before the undersigned on the issue of whether

the complaint should be served. 

I. Background

In the complaint, the plaintiff states that the "Amendment stops the government from

forcing citizens to keep soldiers in their home or where everyColonial Times [sic] citizens were

forecd [sic] to offer rooms to British soldiers." Smith also alleges in his complaint, "limits

search and seizures this Amendment says that and because no one will answere [sic] my

grievance form cause [sic] I have put in 18 to 20 grievances and no one have respond [sic] no

[sic] even the Sheriff Calvin Knighton or Captain Reynolds or Lt. Delaney." Smith requests

$100,000,000 in damages. (Doc. 1.) 

To this complaint, Smith attaches seven "witness statements" from other inmates who

claim to have observed an incident where Sheriff Calvin Knighton kicked and choked inmate

Bryan Charles and kicked inmate Deshaun Brownlee. (Doc. 1. Attach.) 

Case 1:06-cv-01046-HFB Document 5 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

II. Discussion

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. "To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a plaintiff] must show [1] a

deprivation [under color of law] of [2] a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the

Constitution or the laws of the United States." Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.

1999). "[T]o establish a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove

that the defendant’s unconstitutional action was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff’s injury."

Butler v. Dowd, 979 F.2d 661, 669 (8th Cir. 1992).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint shall include "a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Smith's complaint

in this action fails to include such a statement. First, Smith appears to be claiming that his Third

Amendment rights have been violated. The Third Amendment of the Constitution provides, "No

Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor

in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." U.S. CONST. amend. III. Certainly

claims based on the Third Amendment are rare. Plaintiff does not assert that soldiers were

quartered in his house unconstitutionally, and the court can envision no possible set of facts that

would entitle plaintiff to relief. This claim should be dismissed. 

Second, plaintiff references the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to searches and seizures,

and then states that the jail officials are no longer responding to his grievances. Smith does not

allege any facts pertaining to an illegal search or seizure, thus he has not stated a claim on that

issue. Further, Smith has no constitutional right to the answering of his grievances. See Buckley

Case 1:06-cv-01046-HFB Document 5 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (inmate failed to state claim because

no constitutional right was violated by defendants' failure to process all grievances submitted;

prison grievance procedure does not confer any substantive right upon inmates). 

Finally, Smith does not have standing to bring claims on behalf of other inmates.

Therefore, any claim relating to Sheriff Knighton's kicking and choking of other inmates should

be brought by those inmates, not Smith. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-411, 111 S. Ct.

1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991) (generally, litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and

interests, and cannot rest claim to relief on legal rights or interests of third parties; subject to

certain narrow exceptions). 

III. Conclusion

Therefore, I recommend that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for

failing to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (IFP action, or any portion thereof,

may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

Smith has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file

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

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Smith is reminded

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

court. 

DATED this 23rd day of August 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd

_________________________________________

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01046-HFB Document 5 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>