Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00015/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00015-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel McKinley Brooks
Plaintiff
Kyle Bruce
Defendant
Crittenden County, Arkansas
Defendant
Jennifer Miller
Defendant

Document Text:

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

SAMUEL McKINLEY BROOKS PLAINTIFF

V. 3:06CV00015 GTE

CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Mr. Brooks has responded to the Court’s Order requiring him to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed. (Court’s Order of May 11, 2006, Docket No. 24). Mr. Brooks’ response

adds nothing to his previous filings. More importantly, Mr. Brooks has failed to state a claim for

which this Court may award any relief. Accordingly, his Amended Complaint will be dismissed. 

 DISCUSSION

It appears that Plaintiff’s primary complaint is that Arkansas refuses to give him his

“clemency papers of honor.” He also claims that he has been harassed in some unspecified manner

by Kyle Bruce, Jennifer Miller, Leroy Brownlee, Brian Holt, and Mrs. Carol V. Bohanon. Plaintiff

asserts the following as cause for permitting this case to proceed:

“I feel the only thing can solve this matter is we all come to court an [sic] let the

Judge decide. By me being heard by many people, a U.S. Army Bronze Medal

should say enough. So let’s just have a trial, May 30, 2006 at 1:00 o’clock.”

(Show Cause Response, Docket No. 26).

Plaintiff’s response indicates that he believes that this Court is able to resolve any and all

disputes and to restore his honor. However, that is not the case. Federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction. A federal court may only grant relief when some specific law within the Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction has been violated. Plaintiff has not referenced and the Court is unaware of any

Case 3:06-cv-00015-GTE Document 27 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

specific federal law that was arguably violated by the conduct alleged.

To the extent that Plaintiff intends to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has also

failed to state a claim. “Section 1983 relief is predicated on the denial of a right or interest protected

by the Constitution.” Dover Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir.

1995)(internal quotation and citation omitted). Accepting the facts asserted as true, it does not

appear that Plaintiff has stated a claim for the violation of his federal constitutional rights. 

It appears that Plaintiff is on a quest to restore his honor and/or to have his service to the

country, which is memorialized in a bronze medal awarded to him, recognized by Arkansas,

Crittenden County, and/or various state officials. Federal court is not the appropriate forum for this

task. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to address the concerns noted by the Court in its Order to Show

Cause. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, on the Court’s own motion, that Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint in this matter be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. 

It is so ordered this 19th day of May, 2006.

_/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele_______

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00015-GTE Document 27 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2