Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00082/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Greene
Plaintiff
Meridith
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JONATHAN GREENE PLAINTIFF 

#133850 

v. No: 3:20-cv-00082 KGB-PSH 

MERIDITH DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation had been sent to United States District Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff Jonathan Greene, an inmate at the Craighead County Detention 

Facility, filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was 

discriminated against by Officer Meridith (Doc. No. 2). For the reasons stated 

below, Greene fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Case 3:20-cv-00082-KGB Document 4 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 5
2 

I. Screening Standard 

 Federal law requires courts to screen prisoner complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

1915(e)(2). Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim 

for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages 

should be dismissed before the defendants are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

1915(e)(2). Although a complaint requires only a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, the factual allegations set forth 

therein must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007) (“a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .”). While construed liberally, a pro se 

complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its 

face, not merely conceivable. 

II. Analysis 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the 

conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, 

privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Greene claims that Officer Meridith made him move from a 

bottom rack to an upper rack while she allowed younger black inmates to remain on 

Case 3:20-cv-00082-KGB Document 4 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 5
3 

bottom racks. Greene alleges that he and Meridith are both white. Liberally 

construing Greene’s complaint, it appears he may be attempting to state an equal 

protection claim.

Greene fails to state sufficient facts to support such an equal protection claim. 

He does not allege that he is a member of a protected class or that he was denied a 

fundamental right.1

 Accordingly, Greene must allege sufficient facts to state an 

equal protection claim as a class of one. A class-of-one plaintiff must allege that he 

or she was “‘intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that 

there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.’” See Nolan v. Thompson, 

521 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 

562, 564 (2000)). A class-of-one plaintiff must therefore “provide a specific and 

detailed account of the nature of the preferred treatment of the favored class,” 

especially when the state actors exercise broad discretion to balance a number of 

legitimate considerations. Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199, 1214-15 

(10th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). Greene does not specifically identify any 

inmates who are similarly situated to him but afforded preferential treatment. 

                                                             1 Fundamental rights are those expressly mentioned in the Constitution or those 

rights implicitly protected by the Constitution such as the right to privacy, Griswold v. 

Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the right to vote, Harper v. Virginia Board of 

Education, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 

U.S. 618 (1969), and the right to marry, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).

Case 3:20-cv-00082-KGB Document 4 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 5
4 

 Further, even if Greene had specifically identified the younger inmates who 

were not forced to move, Greene still fails to state a claim. He only alleges that he 

was forced to move to an upper rack because he is white. He does not state when 

this occurred, if it was a one time occurrence, and if not, during what time period it 

took place. His allegations are insufficient to show that Greene was “systematically 

and intentionally treated differently.” See e.g., Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d at 1051 

(“A few individual examples of unequal treatment are insufficient to provide more 

than minimal support to an inference of classwide purposeful discrimination.”); 

Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz, 567 F.2d 1368, 

1381 (8th Cir.1977) (two or three individual cases of discrimination insufficient to 

provide more than minimal support to an inference of classwide purposeful 

discrimination). 

 For these reasons, Greene’s equal protection claims should be dismissed for 

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

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: 

 1. Greene’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 3:20-cv-00082-KGB Document 4 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

 3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from the order adopting this recommendation or the accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 17th day of April, 2020. 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:20-cv-00082-KGB Document 4 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 5