Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00682/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Gilliam
Plaintiff
Matthew Hodge
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

RICHARD GILLIAM,

#209415 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 4:19-cv-682-KGB-BD

MATTHEW HODGE DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to Judge

Kristine G. Baker. Any party to this suit may file written objections with the Clerk of 

Court. To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days. Objections should be 

specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. 

If parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right to appeal questions of 

fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing the record. 

II. Background

Plaintiff Richard Gilliam, a pretrial detainee at Lonoke County Detention Facility

(LCDF), filed this civil rights lawsuit on September 30, 2019, without the help of a 

lawyer. (Docket entry #2) After screening the amended complaint, the Court ordered 

service of process for Defendant Hodge based on allegations that he violated Mr. 

Gilliam’s right to equal protection of the law. (#7) Defendant Hodge has now filed a 

motion to dismiss. (#12) Mr. Gilliam has not responded.

Case 4:19-cv-00682-KGB Document 18 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 3
2

III. Discussion

A. Equal Protection Claims

Defendant Hodge has moved to dismiss Mr. Gilliam’s equal protection claims

because those same claims are pending in a separate lawsuit.

1 On May 6, 2019, Mr. 

Gilliam filed a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that Defendant Hodge violated his 

constitutional rights while Mr. Gilliam was held in administrative segregation at the 

LCDF. Gilliam v. Staley, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:19-cv-356-JM-JTR. In his January 

9, 2020 screening order, Judge J. Thomas Ray ordered service of process on claims that 

Defendant Hodge and other officials discriminated against Mr. Gilliam based on his race 

by placing multiple padlocks on his cell door; removing bunks, table, and stool from his 

cell; and requiring him to sleep on the concrete floor. (#35, Gilliam v. Staley, et al., E.D. 

Ark. Case No. 4:19-cv-356-JM-JTR)

Mr. Gilliam filed this lawsuit on September 30, 2019, claiming that Defendant 

Hodge treated him differently from other pretrial detainees at the LCDF because of his 

race. (#2, p.5; #6) As in his earlier-filed case, Mr. Gilliam complained that his cell was 

furnished differently as compared to other detainees. For example, there were padlocks 

 1 Defendant Hodge also argues that the Court should dismiss all claims against him 

because Mr. Gilliam admitted in his complaint that he had not exhausted the grievance 

process when he filed this lawsuit. (#13) Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an 

affirmative defense that a defendant must plead and prove. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 

216 (2007); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005). It cannot be decided 

on a motion to dismiss.

Case 4:19-cv-00682-KGB Document 18 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 3
3

on his cell door; and his cell had no bunk, table, chair, mirror, or towel hanger. (#6, pp.4-

5)

Mr. Gilliam’s equal protection claims against Defendant Hodge should be 

dismissed, without prejudice, because these same claims are pending in another case, i.e., 

Gilliam v. Staley, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:19-cv-356-JM-JTR.

B. Slander and Defamation Claims

In this case, Mr. Gilliam also claims that Defendant Hodge defamed him by telling 

other inmates that he would likely murder them if given the chance. (#2, #6) These 

allegations do not state a federal claim for relief. To the extent Mr. Gilliam has set out 

state claims for relief, the Court should decline to retain jurisdiction over those state 

claims if no federal claims remain. 

IV. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Defendant Hodge’s motion to dismiss (#12) be 

GRANTED and that claims against him be dismissed, without prejudice. 

DATED this 21st day of January, 2020.

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-00682-KGB Document 18 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3