United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
CHARLES K. JOHNSTON, JR. PLAINTIFF
KINSEY RIVERS DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy L. Brooks Judge.
a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff, Charles K.
Johnston, Jr., under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)(Doc.
2). He is currently incarcerated in the Ouachita River Unit
of the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") modified the
IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to require the Court to
screen complaints for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff was
on parole from the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Defendant Kinsey Rivers is a Rogers, Arkansas, parole agent.
alleges he left Conway, Arkansas, on or about October 1,
2016, and traveled to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an effort to find
work and keep from becoming homeless. Plaintiff alleges that
he failed to find work but was unable to return to Conway to
meet with his parole officer. His failure to report led to a
charge of absconding parole and the issuance of a parole
violation warrant (a "white warrant").
turned himself in on the parole violation warrant to the
Tulsa County Jail on December 19, 2016. He was held in the
David L. Moss Detention Center until his release on May 1,
2017. Plaintiff alleges a detainer was lodged
against him on December 20, 2016, on the parole violation. No
new charges were filed against him. Plaintiff further alleges
he appeared by video in court on December 22, 2016, and the
presiding judge explained the extradition rules and
procedures. Plaintiff states he signed a waiver of
extradition. He was told by the presiding judge that she
would notify the State of Arkansas parole office that
Plaintiff was "ready for extradition."
the entire time he was incarcerated in Tulsa, Plaintiff
alleges he was never contacted by the Arkansas Parole Office
and told what he needed to do or how to contact his parole
agent for assistance. He was not extradited back to Arkansas.
his release, Plaintiff alleges he was homeless and had no
money or cell phone to make contact with anyone. Plaintiff
states he walked to the public library to use the Internet to
contact his "former boss" and ask for a job in
Olathe, Kansas. Plaintiff alleges his former boss provided
him with a one-way bus ticket to Kansas City, Kansas.
around June 21, 2017, Plaintiff alleges the Olathe, Kansas,
Police Department arrested him on the same parole violation
warrant. Plaintiff states he refused to sign the extradition
papers and was unwillingly extradited to Arkansas. Plaintiff
states he was transported by probation/parole officers to the
Benton County Detention Center on or about June 22, 2017.
parole revocation hearing was held on August 17, 2017, with
the Honorable Lisa M. Wilkins presiding. According to
Plaintiff, at his hearing, Kinsey Rivers perjured herself by
testifying that the Tulsa detention center had failed to
notify the Arkansas parole office of Plaintiff's
incarceration and ultimate release. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant also drafted a typed statement in which she stated
that the parole office was unaware that Plaintiff was being
held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, until after his release when they
were notified the parole hold had been withdrawn by the
judge. At the time, Plaintiff had already been released from
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He
also asks that the "rest" of his parole be
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen a case prior to
service of process being issued. A claim is frivolous when 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." Bell Ml.
Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court
bears in mind, however, that when "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