United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
T. KEARNEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In Forma Pauperis
Hamilton, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks relief
in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and has filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 1). This
includes the appropriate financial information which makes
the showing required by the statute; therefore,
Plaintiff's Motion will be granted.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay
the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this
action. Plaintiff has been without sufficient
funds for six months and is presently without sufficient
funds. Accordingly, the Court will not assess an initial
partial filing fee. Plaintiff is obligated, however, to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's
income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust account each
time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the
filing fee is paid in full. Plaintiff's present
custodian, the Poinsett County Detention Center, is required
to send to the Clerk of the Court these payments from
Plaintiff's prison trust account until the statutory
filing fee of $350 is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. §
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts
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 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. 28 U.S.C.
action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
reviewing a pro se complaint under §
1915(e)(2)(B), the court must give the complaint the benefit
of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court must also weigh all factual
allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts
alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). But regardless whether a plaintiff is
represented or appearing pro se, the complaint must
allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
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.
alleges Defendant Hickey used excessive force against him in
an incident which occurred at the Poinsett County Detention
Center in June, 2016. However, he does not include any
allegations of improper/unconstitutional conduct against
named Defendants Mills and Cruise. The Court will provide
Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his Complaint with respect
to his allegations against the named Defendants and any
additional Defendants he wishes to name. If he decides to
amend, Plaintiff should submit to the Court, within thirty
(30) days of the entry date of this Order, a superseding
Amended Complaint which contains all of his claims against
all Defendants he is suing in a single document. Plaintiff is
cautioned that an Amended Complaint renders his original
Complaint without legal effect. Only claims properly set out in
the Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed. Therefore,
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should: 1) name all the
parties he believes deprived him of his constitutional rights
and whom he wishes to sue in this action; 2) provide specific
facts against each named Defendant in a simple, concise, and
direct manner; 3) indicate whether he is suing each Defendant
in his/her individual or official capacity, or in both
capacities; 4) state how he was harmed; and 5) state if he
was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident.
Plaintiff must set forth specific facts concerning the
allegations he has set forth including, where applicable,
dates, times and places.
Court is sensitive to the fact that pro se litigants
like Plaintiff are not trained in the law and will give
deference to a pro se plaintiff where the law
requires. However, all parties, including pro se
litigants, must comply with substantive and procedural law.
Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the Court will only consider claims properly
pled in a Complaint or in a superseding Amended Complaint.
Additionally, the Court will not consider claims stated in
notices or other pleadings not filed in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.