United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Shandon Samuels, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. When Plaintiff filed this case, he was
incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center.
Plaintiff has since been released.
case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
11) filed by Separate Defendants Private Levi Littrell and
Private Adam Miles. Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion
to the allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), on October
14, 2017, the cell block Plaintiff was in was ordered
downstairs to get “new stripes.” When he was done
changing, Plaintiff took his dirty stripes back downstairs.
Pineda then asked him what comment he had made. Plaintiff
replied: “Is that all you fake a-drill
[sergeant]!” Corporal Pineda asked Plaintiff to step
out of the cell block. Plaintiff turned around and started
back up the stairs “because [he] didn't feel like
there was a reason to step outside.”
point, Plaintiff alleges Corporal Pineda grabbed him by the
head and neck and jerked him off the stairs. Plaintiff
alleges another officer helped Corporal Pineda get him to the
floor. Plaintiff states Corporal Pineda stuck a Taser into
his stomach and told him to roll over. Plaintiff alleges
Corporal Pineda smashed his elbow on the ground and
Pineda was removed from the cell block by Sergeant Byrd.
Plaintiff was given five days in the “hole.”
relief, Plaintiff is asking for compensatory and punitive
damages. He also asks for the Defendants to be reprimanded.
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 plaintiff's
complaint, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to
support his claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
Littrell and Miles have moved to dismiss the claims against
them because they are not mentioned by name in connection
with any actions or omissions described in the body of the
Complaint. As Plaintiff has alleged no facts which indicate
any unconstitutional acts or omissions on their part,
Defendants Littrell and Miles maintain they are entitled to
Court agrees. Section 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 ...