United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BASIL ABDUL RASHEED, JR. PLAINTIFF
CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
this Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by Defendant
John Pickett (“Pickett”). ECF No. 13. Plaintiff
filed several responses to this motion. ECF No. 14, 34.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
(3) (2005), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III referred this
motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and
recommendation. On January 10, 2018, a hearing was held on
this Motion. All Defendants appeared through counsel.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, also appeared.
The Court, having reviewed the parties' arguments and
briefing, recommends the Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 13), of
Pickett, be GRANTED.
17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against
several parties. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's claims relate to
a traffic stop involving his son, Demetrius Stanley. The
limited facts alleged in the Complaint state that on March
27, 2016, Co-Defendant Officer Darren Jones arrested the
Plaintiff's son, Demetrius Stanley. ECF No. 1. This
arrest followed a traffic stop conducted by Co-Defendant
Officer Freeman for expired car registration. Id.
Following the stop, it was confirmed that Demetrius Stanley
had an outstanding warrant for a parole violation out of
Bowie County, Texas. Id. The traffic stop and arrest
occurred at the intersection of St. Michael Drive and State
Line Avenue in Texarkana, Texas. Id. Plaintiff's
Complaint makes no allegation he was present during the
traffic stop and arrest on March 27, 2016. Additionally,
Plaintiff, at the hearing held on January 10, 2018,
acknowledged he was not present at the time of the traffic
stop and arrest of Demetrius Stanley.
Pickett filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
for lack of standing, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and 12(b)(5) for improper
service. ECF. No. 13. Plaintiff responded to this motion. ECF
Nos. 14, 34. Because this court finds Plaintiff lacks
standing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to bring this suit, only
this ground will be addressed in the Report and
the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has
liberally construed his complaint. However, the Plaintiff
must still allege sufficient facts to support his claims.
See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
is a necessary component of the jurisdiction of an Article
III court, which exists to resolve cases or controversies.
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908,
37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). If a Plaintiff lacks standing, the
district court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
Friedmann v. Sheldon Cmty. Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 802,
804 (8th Cir.1993). To establish standing, the Plaintiff must
demonstrate: (1) he suffered an injury in fact which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual and imminent; (2)
a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the
alleged injury; and, (3) it must be likely, as opposed to
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560- 561 (1992).
Plaintiff's claims relate to a traffic stop involving his
son, Demetrius Stanley. Plaintiff was not involved, nor even
present, at the time of the traffic stop. Plaintiff's
Complaint makes no allegation showing he was in any way
stopped, detained, touched, arrested or effected in any way
by the traffic stop which occurred on March 27, 2106.
Plaintiff has not pled a single contact with Pickett related
to the March 27, 2016 traffic stop. Plaintiff's position at
the hearing on this Motion was simply that he “had the
right to defend his son.” Plaintiff has failed to
allege any injury he suffered related to the March 27, 2016
this Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
action and, consequently the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant John Pickett.
upon the foregoing, this Court recommends that Defendant John
Pickett's Motion To Dismiss, (ECF No. 13) be
parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report
and Recommendation in which to file written objections
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file
timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections
must be both timely and specific to trigger d ...