United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. Hickey United States District Judge.
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and
in forma pauperis. The case is before the Court for
preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint
in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
filed his initial Complaint on January 18, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
He is currently incarcerated in the Miller County Detention
Center (“MCDC”) as a pre-trial detainee.
Plaintiff has named Officer Mark Brown as a Defendant in this
action. Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were
violated on January 1, 2018, when Defendant Brown:
was suppose to bring me a allergy Tray to beans but he
didn't he tried to give me one with beans, and I told him
I was allergic to beans and he said he would have to bring me
a Johnny Sack back and that wasn't the case, they
were only suppose to substitute my beans like they normally
Id. at pgs. 4-5. Plaintiff then claims he refused
the Johnny Sack and Defendant Brown “just dropped it on
the floor at the door and shut the door.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated
“by [Defendant Brown] throwing my food on floor.”
is suing Defendant in his individual and official capacities.
Although he has not alleged that he was injured as a result
of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10,
000.00. (ECF No. 1, p. 7).
the 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:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks 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.” Bell Atlantic 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 (2007)). But
regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or appearing
pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient
to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F .2d
1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).
Individual Capacity Claim
claims that Defendant Brown violated his constitutional
rights when he brought Plaintiff a Johnny Sack instead of a
replacement tray without beans on it and then threw it on the
floor when Plaintiff refused the sack. The Court construes
Plaintiff's claim as one alleging unlawful conditions of
the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there
against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a
corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his
safety and general well-being.” County of
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (citation
omitted). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable
prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the
imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const.
amend. VIII; see also Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d
340, 345 (8th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard of
the Eighth Amendment applies to claims brought by both
pretrial detainees and convicted inmates that prison
officials failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter,
etc.). The ...