Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00609/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00609-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josh Britton
Plaintiff
Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JOSH BRITTON, PLAINTIFF

ADC #163838

v. 4:16CV00609-BSM-JTK

PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION

FACILITY DEFENDANT

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.

1

Case 4:16-cv-00609-BSM Document 10 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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 “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

Plaintiff Britton originally filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action while incarcerated

at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (Jail) (Doc. No. 1). He notified the Court

of his change in address, to the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction

(ADC), on October 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 9).

By Order dated September 14, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP), and directed him to file an Amended Complaint in thirty days,

noting that the sole Defendant Jail is not considered a “person” within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 4). The Court also provided directions about how to amend his

2

Case 4:16-cv-00609-BSM Document 10 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 4
Complaint, such as naming all the parties he believes deprived him of his constitutional rights

and providing specific facts against each named Defendant. (Id., p. 4) The Court further

cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file an Amended Complaint could result in the dismissal

of his action, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). The copy of the

Order sent to Plaintiff at the Jail was returned to Sender on September 21, 2016 (Doc. No.

8), and remailed to him at his new address (Grimes Unit) on October 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 9). 

As of this date, however, Plaintiff has not submitted an Amended Complaint.

As noted in the September 14, 2016 Order, the sole named Defendant, Pulaski County

Regional Detention Facility (Jail), is not considered a “person” within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. See 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); 

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). Therefore, absent submission of an

Amended Complaint designating individuals as Defendants and setting forth specific facts

against those Defendants, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

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.

3

Case 4:16-cv-00609-BSM Document 10 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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 10th day of November, 2016.

_________________________________

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1The 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.

4

Case 4:16-cv-00609-BSM Document 10 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 4