Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00336/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donte Terrell Carter
Plaintiff
Toni Raymond
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DONTE TERRELL CARTER PLAINTIFF 

ADC #155684 

v. No: 3:19-cv-00336 DPM-PSH 

TONI RAYMOND DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District 

Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. 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 Donte Terrell Carter filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 on November 22, 2019, while incarcerated at the Craighead County Detention 

Case 3:19-cv-00336-DPM Document 12 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 5
Center (Doc. No. 2).1

 Carter was ordered to file an amended complaint to fully 

describe his claims. Doc. No. 6. Carter subsequently filed an amended complaint 

and an addendum. Doc. Nos. 7 & 8. The Court gave Carter another opportunity to 

amend his complaint, instructing him to describe his medical needs and how his 

rights had been violated. Doc. No. 9. The Court also instructed Carter to explain 

why he sued defendant Toni Raymond in her official capacity only. Id. In response, 

Carter filed a notice stating that he had already filed an amended complaint and 

clarifying that he is suing Raymond because she took payment to treat his wisdom 

tooth but did not provide any treatment. Doc. No. 11. 

 For the reasons stated herein, Carter’s claims should be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

I. Screening Standard 

 Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court 

must review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if 

it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

                                                             1

 Carter is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction’s 

Cummins Unit. See Doc. No. 10. 

Case 3:19-cv-00336-DPM Document 12 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 5
entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007), the Court stated, “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. . . . Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” citing 5 C. 

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 

2004). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. Twombly at 570. However, a pro se 

plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of 

Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). 

II. Analysis 

 Carter sues Raymond in her official capacity only. See Doc. No. 7 at 2. 

Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing 

governmental entity.” Veach v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th 

Cir. 2010). Thus, a suit against the defendants in their official capacities is in essence 

a suit against the County or city itself. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 

2010); Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8thCir. 1998). A municipality cannot be held 

liable on the basis of respondeat superior, or simply by virtue of being the employer 

of a tortfeasor. Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, the defendant county employee can only be held liable in her 

Case 3:19-cv-00336-DPM Document 12 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 5
official capacity in this case if Carter can establish that a constitutional violation was 

committed pursuant to “an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental 

entity.” Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8thCir. 2009). 

 Carter complains that Raymond did not treat his wisdom tooth but accepted 

payment for such treatment. Doc. No. 11. Carter was instructed to explain why he 

sued Carter in her official capacity on two occasions, and he has not done so. See 

Doc. Nos. 6 & 9. Carter does not assert that a custom or policy of Craighead County 

was the moving force behind the claimed violations of his constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 

and should be dismissed. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: 

 1. Carter’s complaint 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). 

 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 and accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

Case 3:19-cv-00336-DPM Document 12 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 5
 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 2020. 

 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00336-DPM Document 12 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 5