Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ford v. Gooley

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

October 4, 2016

DAMIEN FORD, ADC # 143035, Plaintiff,
v.
P. GOOLEY, et al., Defendants.

          Damien Ford, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

          BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

         This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Background:

         Damien Ford, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"), filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Ford's allegations relate to a disciplinary conviction for failing to obey orders, being out of place of assignment, and unexcused absence from work. (#2, pp. 8-12) As a result of the disciplinary conviction, Mr. Ford lost commissary, telephone, and visitation privileges. He also suffered a reduction in his inmate class. (#2, p. 11)

         Mr. Ford appealed the disciplinary conviction, and the disciplinary review officer reversed the conviction. (#2, p. 14) There was no reason given for the reversal beyond a reference to a thorough review of the record. Mr. Ford appealed the disciplinary conviction reversal and ADC Director Wendy Kelly noted that the conviction was already reversed. (#2, p. 15) Again, no reason was given for the decision to reverse the disciplinary conviction.

         It is likely, from reviewing the record, that the reversal was based on the ADC's failure to follow its own policy. It appears that the ADC either failed to write or failed to hear the disciplinary charge within the time prescribed by ADC policy.

         III. Discussion:

         A. Standard

         Federal courts are required to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner's claims are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant's conduct deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and hold a pro se plaintiff's pleadings "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) ( per curiam ). Still, a prisoner-plaintiff must plead facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.