United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
February 25, 2015
RAKEBIA QUJUAN DANIELS, ADC #754266, Plaintiff,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.
The following Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. 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 the entry of this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
Mail any objections to:
Plaintiff, Rakebia QuJuan Daniels, is a prisoner in the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. She has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants failed to provide her with constitutionally adequate medical care. Doc. 2. Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court recommends that the case be dismissed, with prejudice, as being barred by the statute of limitations.
On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this § 1983 action. Doc. 2. In her Complaint, she alleges that, from June to August of 2009, Defendants failed to provide her with constitutionally adequate medical for a vaginal cyst. Doc. 2.
The statute of limitations for filing a § 1983 action arising in Arkansas is three years. Wallace v. Keto, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2007); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001). Thus, Plaintiff was required to file her complaint raising her inadequate medical care claims on or before August of 2012. Because she waited until December 29, 2014, to file her Complaint, the statue of limitation now bars all of the inadequate medical care claims she has asserted against all Defendants. See Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a district court may, sua sponte, dismiss an in forma pauperis case as "frivolous" when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run); Housley v. Erwin, Case No. 08-1732, 2009 WL 1444182 (8th Cir. May 26, 2009) (unpublished opinion) (same).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The Complaint (Doc. 2) be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, as being frivolous.
2. The dismissal be counted as a "STRIKE, " as defined by 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 any Order adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken in good faith.