Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00205/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Harris
Plaintiff
Northeast Ark Community Corrections Center
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOSHUA HARRIS 

#969495 PLAINTIFF 

v. 3:24-cv-00205-DPM-JJV 

NORTHEAST ARK COMMUNITY 

CORRECTIONS CENTER, MEDICAL DEFENDANT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United 

States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and 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. 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 this Recommendation. 

Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. DISCUSSION 

Joshua Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the Mississippi County Detention Facility who 

has filed a Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2.) The Prison Litigation 

Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a 

governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A. The court must dismiss a 

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or 

malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. When conducting this review, the court 

construes pro se pleadings liberally. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). But 

Case 3:24-cv-00205-DPM Document 4 Filed 11/07/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

“labels and conclusions,” “formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked 

assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a plausible claim. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint must provide “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 

Plaintiff says that while he was in the Northeast Arkansas Community Corrections Center 

(“NEACCC”) in April of 2023, unnamed medical providers stopped all medications he had been 

receiving for bipolar disorder and psychosis. (Doc. 2.) As a result, Plaintiff allegedly went 

“haywire,” began hearing voices, and fled the facility in July 2023 because he believed people 

there were “out to get me.” (Id. at 5.) Soon thereafter, criminal charges were filed against Plaintiff 

for escaping from the NEACCC. See State v. Harris, 47OCR-24-101 (Mississippi County Circuit 

Court, Osceola District). And those charges are still pending. (Id.) In this § 1983 action, Plaintiff 

seeks monetary damages for the allegedly inadequate mental health care he received at the 

NEACCC and the dismissal of the pending escape charge. (Doc. 2 at 6.) 

The State of Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Plaintiff 

may raise claims regarding his mental competency during his state criminal proceedings. Younger 

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245 

(8th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, Plaintiff has not raised facts suggesting bad faith, harassment, or 

any other extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Middlesex Cnty. 

Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). Thus, Younger abstention 

applies. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, and he does not challenge the constitutionality of any state 

statutes. Thus, his constitutional claim raised in this civil proceeding should be stayed until the 

criminal charges, including any appeals, are resolved in state court. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. 

Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 603-604 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Case 3:24-cv-00205-DPM Document 4 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

II. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s civil constitutional claim be STAYED and this case be 

ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINIATED until State v. Harris, 47OCR-24-101 (Mississippi 

County Circuit Court, Osceola District), including any appeal, is resolved in state court. 

2. The Court impose a deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion to Reopen this case after 

his state criminal proceeding are concluded.

DATED this 7th day of November 2024. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00205-DPM Document 4 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 3