United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BASIL ABDUL RASHEED, JR. PLAINTIFF
CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, et al 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, Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Wulff
(“AUSA Wulff”). ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed
several responses to this motion. ECF No. 26, 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. 20) of AUSA Wulff be
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.
AUSA Wulff 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, 12(b)(5) for
improper service, and for immunity based on his status as a
Federal Prosecutor. ECF. No. 20. Plaintiff responded to this
motion. ECF Nos. 26, 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, 2016.
Plaintiff has not pled a single contact with AUSA Wulff
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 traffic stop.
this Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
action and, consequently the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's claims.
upon the foregoing, this Court recommends that Defendant
Benjamin Wulff's Motion To Dismiss, (ECF No. 20) 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 ...