Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuels v. Pineda

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

February 21, 2018

SHANDON SAMUELS PLAINTIFF
v.
CORPORAL CARLOS PINEDA; PRIVATE LEVI LITTRELL; and PRIVATE ADAM MILES DEFENDANTS

          OPINION

          P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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.

         The 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 Dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         According 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.

         Corporal 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.”

         At this 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 handcuffed him.

         Corporal Pineda was removed from the cell block by Sergeant Byrd. Plaintiff was given five days in the “hole.”

         As relief, Plaintiff is asking for compensatory and punitive damages. He also asks for the Defendants to be reprimanded.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendants 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 dismissal.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.