United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. He is incarcerated in the Carroll County
action is currently before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 11) filed by Separate Defendants Deputy Hernandez and
Deputy Hunt, and a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 16)
filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion
to Dismiss, but Defendants did respond to the Motion for
Injunctive Relief. See Doc. 19.
to the allegations of the Complaint, on the day Plaintiff was
booked in the jail, he refused to wait in his cell until
officials finished the booking process. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Shaddock said he was flirting with her.
Plaintiff agrees, but claims she was also flirting with him.
Plaintiff further alleges that Officer Dean entered the
booking area and shoved Plaintiff into the wall, then took
him to the floor, hit him, and dragged him into his cell. As
a result of this incident, Plaintiff was charged with
battery. He maintains, however, that he did not hurt anybody,
swing at anyone, or do anything wrong. As relief, Plaintiff
would like an attorney so that he can have the criminal
charges against him dropped, and he also requests a
settlement of this matter.
Motion to Dismiss
8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "In order to meet this standard,
and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 'a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
omitted)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 678. While the Court will liberally construe a pro
se plaintiffs complaint, the plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to support his claims. See Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
Hernandez and Hunt have moved to dismiss the claims against
them on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
that show that either of them engaged in any wrongful
activity or caused damage or injury to Plaintiff. Deputies
Hernandez and Hunt also point out that they are not mentioned
by name in the body of the Complaint. They contend they are
entitled to dismissal of both the individual official
capacity claims against them. The Court agrees.
1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation,
under color of law, of a citizen's "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. In order to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that the
defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated
a right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional;
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for
deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986).
to establish liability under § 1983 there must be some
personal involvement on the part of the Defendant. Keeper
v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997).
"Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to,
and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of
rights" Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962,
967 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Complaint in the case at bar fails to mention
Deputies Hernandez and Hunt by name or explain the acts of
wrongdoing they allegedly committed. The Complaint also fails
to explain how either Defendant is liable in his official
capacity. The Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
seeks a preliminary injunction against Carroll County for
what he describes as acts taken against him by a Carroll
County deputy in retaliation for filing the instant lawsuit.
According to Plaintiff, on January 15, 2018, after he filed
this lawsuit, he witnessed Carroll County Officer Mehn-who is
not a Defendant here-physically abuse another inmate.
Plaintiff told Officer Mehn that he thought his treatment of
the other inmate was unlawful. Officer Mehn then approached
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff alleges that the two had a
discussion which included the topic of Plaintiff's civil
lawsuit. According to Plaintiff, Officer Mehn drew his taser
at some point, brandished it, and said: "I will pop your
door." Plaintiff interprets Officer Mehn's act as a
threat of violence against him for filing the instant
lawsuit. Plaintiff mentions in his Motion that Mrs. Shaddock,
who is a Defendant in this case, also happens to be Officer
Mehn's spouse. As relief, Plaintiff requests that Carroll
County transfer him to a different jail-a "safe,
neutral, third-party holding facility"-while this civil
action is pending.
do not contest the facts Plaintiff sets forth in the Motion,
instead, Defendants argue that, even if these facts are true,
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an immediate threat of
irreparable harm and an entitlement to injunctive relief.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions. Courts must take into account the following
factors when considering whether to award preliminary
injunctive relief: 1) the probability of success on the
merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3)
the balance between this harm and the injury that granting
the injunction will inflict on other interested parties; and,
(4) whether the issuance of an injunction is in the ...