Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141114_0001890.EAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 12:04:09
Document Index: 266726177

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', 'art, 949', '§ 1983']

| Richardson v. Craighead County Detention Center
Richardson v. Craighead County Detention Center
JOHN DAVID RICHARDSON ADC #158753, et al., Plaintiffs,v.CRAIGHEAD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff John David Richardson is an inmate confined at the Craighead County Detention Facility (Jail), who filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging numerous unrelated claims against numerous Defendants (Doc. No. 2). By Order dated October 22, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit, and directed him to file an Amended Complaint, noting that his Complain failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 3). The Court also noted that the Amended Complaint would render the Original Complaint without legal effect. Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint, adding a co-Plaintiff, Charles Bausley, and more Defendants (Doc. No. 5). Having reviewed such, the Court finds it should be dismissed, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Additionally, to survive a court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) screening, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement, " but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id. III. Facts and Analysis
As stated in the October 22, 2014 Order, in order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived him of a constitutional right. Griffin-El v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al., 835 F.Supp. 1114, 1118 (E.D.Mo. 1993). Two Defendants, the Jonesboro Sun and the KAIT 8 News Crew, however, are private companies and not state actors. In addition, the Craighead County Detention Center (Jail) and the Jonesboro Police Department are not considered persons subject to suit in this action. 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, Plaintiff's allegations against these Defendants should be dismissed.
Plaintiff also alleges harassment and improper conditions of confinement by unnamed individuals at the Jail. In the Court's October 22, 2014 Order, it directed Plaintiff to "name all the parties he believes deprived him of his constitutional rights and whom he wishes to sue, " and "provide specific facts against each named Defendant." (Doc. No. 3, p. 4.) However, Plaintiff's failure to abide by this directive renders his Amended Complaint too vague and conclusory to support a constitutional claim for relief. In addition, allegations of harassment and name-calling by unknown employees of the Jail fail to support a constitutional claim for relief. "Generally, mere verbal threats made by a state-actor do not constitute a § 1983 claim." King v. Olmsted County, 117 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir. 1992)).
Plaintiff also names as Defendants the Craighead County Circuit Court, the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Deputy Public Defender Charlene Henry, and Circuit Judge John Langston. He does not include any specific allegations against any of these Defendants, other than to claim that he was improperly arrested.[1] To the extent that he is challenging his arrest and subsequent conviction, the Court finds that he seeks habeas corpus relief, which cannot be granted in an action filed pursuant to § 1983. See Wilson v. Lockhart, 949 F.2d 1051 (8th Cir. 1991). In addition, an allegation against Defendant Henry is barred by sovereign immunity. "[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding." Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). See also Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1988). And, judges who are sued under § 1983 also are immune from liability for damages for judicial acts they perform, as long as they do not act in "absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-7 reh'g denied, 436 U.S. 951 (1978), citing Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872). Since Plaintiff does not specifically allege a constitutional violation by Defendant Langston, he also should be dismissed.
Finally, co-Plaintiff Charles Bausley should be dismissed. Although Plaintiff names Bausley in his Amended Complaint, he does not refer to him in his Statement of Claim, and it is unclear how Bausley is involved with the allegations set forth.
1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.