Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05237/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jay Cantrell
Defendant
Devell Chambers
Plaintiff
Henson
Defendant
Murphy
Defendant
Sandybrook
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DEVELL CHAMBERS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05237-CDC

SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington 

County, Arkansas; DEPUTY MURPHY, 

Washington County Detention Center (WCDC); 

CORPORAL HENSON, WCDC; and 

CORPORAL SANDYBROOK, WCDC DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Devell Chambers (“Chambers”), an inmate of the Washington County Detention 

Center (WCDC), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chambers proceeds pro se

and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. However, because 

not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document 

will be dispositive of Chambers’ claims, this document will be filed as a Report and 

Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge 

Timothy L. Brooks. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

General Order 2024-02. 

The case is before the Court for preservice screening of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 

4) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Pursuant to § 1915A, 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. 

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

I. BACKGROUND

Chambers filed this case on November 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Chambers was advised 

that his Complaint was deficient because it did not describe how each named Defendant personally 

violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 2). He was explicitly told that he must “include in 

his factual allegations how each Defendant personally violated his rights.” Id. 

Chambers was given explicit instructions on what his Amended Complaint must contain. 

(ECF No. 2). The instructions included the following:

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the 

Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of 

the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed 

to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation 

of Plaintiff=s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered 

because of that Defendant=s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 

377 (1976); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant. 

Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must affirmatively link the conduct of each 

named Defendant with the specific injury he suffered. If he fails to do, the 

allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

(ECF No. 2 at 1-2).

On December 2, 2024, Chambers filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4). 

According to the allegations of Claim One of Amended Complaint, during August and September 

inside pods A3, B4, and A7, excessive force was used against him; he was denied medical care; 

and he was denied food. Id. at 4. His factual allegations are:

My wrists were damaged and once I was removed. I wasn’t seen by medical for 

my breathing and wasn’t feed a meal!

Cpl. Murphy put me on lockdowns.

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Corporal Henson wrote me a bogus ticket.

Corporal Sandybrook cursed me out, telling me he was going to take me to the 

whole.

Id. at 4-5. 

In the area of the complaint form where Chambers was asked if he was asserting an official 

capacity claim, he wrote: “Because I was put in the []hole and lost my trustee status and removed 

from the AA program that I so much needed.” Id. at 5.

In Claim Two, Chambers indicates his constitutional rights were violated by the use of 

excessive force and the denial of medical care. (ECF No. 4 at 6). His factual allegations follow:

My wrist was damaged.

Cpl. Henson, Deputy Murphy.

My wrist was damaged.

(ECF No. 4 at 6).

In the area of the complaint form where Chambers was asked if he was asserting an official 

capacity claim, Chambers wrote: “Wrongfully treat[ed] and treated not as a human being.” Id. at 

7.

Claim Three is essentially a duplicate of Claim Two. (ECF No. 7-8). The only difference 

is he includes Defendant Sandybrook in factual statement. Id. at 8. Chambers checks a box 

indicating that he is asserting an official capacity claim. Id. at 8. However, in the form where 

he is asked to describe the custom, policy, or widespread practice that he believed violated his 

constitutional rights, Chambers wrote nothing.

Chambers is in convicted status. (ECF No. 4 at 2). As relief, Chambers seeks both 

compensatory and punitive damages for his “mistreatment and racial discr[i]mination and not 

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

receiving proper medical treatment for my wrist.” Id. at 9. 

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

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 in 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). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff 

has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully 

pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. 

Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 

However, even a pro se plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin 

v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8thCir. 1985).

III. 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 state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) each defendant 

acted under color of state law, and (2) that he or she violated a right secured by the constitution. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Chambers’ claims are subject to dismissal. First, Defendant Cantrell cannot be held liable 

based solely on his supervisory position at the WCDC. Under § 1983 a supervisor cannot be held 

liable for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate based solely on the fact that he has general 

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

responsibility for supervising the operations of the facility. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S, 662, 676 

(2009); Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010). In other words, Defendant Cantrell 

is only liable for his own individual actions which resulted in the deprivation of Chambers’

constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. In this case, Chambers has made no factual 

statements regarding Defendant Cantrell’s conduct. Indeed, Defendant Cantrell is not mentioned 

at all in the body of the Amended Complaint. The only reference to him is that he is listed as a 

Defendant. 

Second, in Claim One no factual allegations are made setting forth actions taken by 

Defendants Murphy, Sandybrook, and Henson that would amount to the use of excessive force, 

the denial of medical care, or the refusal to feed Chambers. “Section 1983 liability is personal.” 

Dahl v. Weber, 580 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). “Liability under section 1983 requires a causal 

link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 

F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 

The only allegation regarding Defendant Murphy is that he placed Chambers on lockdown. In Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), the Supreme Court held that being placed in 

segregation or on disciplinary confinement did not violate a prisoner’s liberty interests unless the 

prisoner is subjected to “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents 

of prison life.” Id. at 484. No such allegations are made. Moreover, being placed on lock-down 

does not equate to an excessive force or denial of medical care claim.

The only allegation regarding Defendant Murphy is that he wrote Chambers a “bogus 

ticket.” Nothing explains any possible relationship between this act and the use of excessive force 

or the denial of medical care. Furthermore, the filing of a false disciplinary charge against an 

inmate is not actionable under § 1983 unless the disciplinary charge is in retaliation for the inmate’s 

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

exercise of a constitutional right. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Chambers has made no such allegations.

The only allegation against Defendant Sandybrook is that he cursed Chambers and said he 

was going to take him to the hole. Again, these allegations have nothing to do with the excessive 

force and denial of medical care claims. Moreover, as noted above, Chambers cannot sue over 

being placed in disciplinary confinement unless he can establish an atypical and significant 

hardship. No such allegations are made.

While the Court is required to liberally construe the Amended Complaint, even pro se

complaints are required to allege sufficient facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter 

of law. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (“When we say that a pro se 

complaint should be given liberal construction, we mean that if the essence of an allegation is 

discernable . . . then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the 

layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal frame work.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Though pro se 

complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims 

advanced.”) (citation omitted). Furthermore, “[a]lthough we must liberally construe plaintiff’s 

factual allegations, we will not supply additional facts, nor will we construct a legal theory that for 

plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.” Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (8th

Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). In this case, despite being given an opportunity to amend his 

complaint and being explicitly told he must allege facts showing how each defendant violated his 

constitutional rights, the factual allegations are so sparse as to be virtually nonexistent.

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
7

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I recommend that:

(1) the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted;

(2) Plaintiff/Petitioner be 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; and

(3) the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this 

dismissal would not be taken in good faith.

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 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: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and 

Recommendation.

RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December 2024.

s/ Christy Comstock

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>
8

Case 5:24-cv-05237-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/18/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:

<pageID>