United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. BROOKS UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff Patrick Lewis
Hubbard under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Hubbard proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. He is incarcerated in the Benton County
matter is presently before the Court for initial screening of
Hubbard's pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this
action should be summarily dismissed pursuant to Section
1915A and Section 1915(e)(2)(B).
to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), on November 2,
2016, Hubbard was incarcerated in the Pope County Jail. On
that day, Transport Officer Gonzalez took him into custody on
a felony warrant and transported him to Benton County, where
he was booked into the Benton County Detention Center
("BCDC"). Hubbard alleges Officer Gonzalez lacked
authority to do this because he was not a police officer.
does not further explain what he means by this statement. He
contends Officer Gonzalez caused him to be illegally arrested
and falsely incarcerated for months.
respect to Detective Eddie Weimer, Hubbard alleges he gave
Officer Gonzalez a felony warrant for Hubbard and had him
taken into custody and confined in a hostile environment.
Hubbard alleges Detective Weimer engaged in a conspiracy to
falsely imprison him. Hubbard further alleges that after he
was booked in, Detective Weimer came to the Benton County
Sheriffs Office, got a warrant out of Hubbard's file
"that someone forgot to serve and signed it, as if he
served it." (Doc. 1, p. 7).
alleges Officer Devore allowed him to be booked into the BCDC
without the booking detention form being filled out
completely or the warrant having been served. Hubbard alleges
these actions allowed the false imprisonment to continue.
November 6, 2016, to the present, Hubbard alleges Lieutenant
Holt, Detective Diehl, and Sergeant Lira, each knew that he
was being imprisoned based on documents falsified by
Detective Weimer, yet did nothing to stop this injustice and
instead threatened Hubbard or punished him for "not
letting the subject rest." Id. at 8. As a
result, Hubbard alleges that he has required psychological
help, has lost work, has missed time with his family, and has
been subjected to a hostile environment. Hubbard seeks to
recover compensatory and punitive damages and any other
relief to which he may be entitled.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the
Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of
process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or
any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (a) are
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. §
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not
allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." BellAtl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "In evaluating
whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to
state a claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, ... to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."'
Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
case at bar, Hubbard argues that his arrest and subsequent
incarceration in the BCDC were unlawful. However, Hubbard
does not deny that Benton County had a valid felony warrant
for his arrest. He alleges in his Complaint that the officer
who picked him up from the Pope County Jail and transported
him to the BCDC did not have the lawful authority to arrest
him. But whether the transport officer was a civilian
employee or a certified law enforcement officer is of no
consequence here. The Court is not aware of-and Hubbard has
not identified-any constitutional provision or law that
prohibits transport of a prisoner from one county to another,
within the same state, based on the existence of a valid
felony warrant. Furthermore, Arkansas law explicitly permits
the execution of arrest warrants by law enforcement officers
in any county in the state. See Engleman v. Murray,546 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 2008). Finally, as to
Hubbard's claim that Detective Weimer obtained a warrant
"out of [his] file, " and then signed it after
Hubbard was already booked, the law ...