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
filed his Complaint on January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On
February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint but
failed to include two pages of the document. (ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 26,
2018. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Charles
Featherson, Daniel Stewart, Freddie Parks and Andrew Watson
unlawfully arrested him on January 2, 2015. Plaintiff claims
these Defendants conspired against him, tampered with
evidence and planted drugs in his vehicle. (ECF No. 11, p.
has also named his public defender, Anthony Biddle, as a
Defendant. With regard to Defendant Biddle, Plaintiff claims:
Attorney Biddle withheld the Motion of discovery until about
five minutes before I stood before the judge. He never
reviewed the evidence only stated that they were offering
five years probation. Plea under duress I would have never
plead guilty if I had saw there evidence. Harm caused felony
conviction; currently serving probation; inadequate
counsil...Attorney Biddle stated to the judge that I had
drugs in my pocket when I accepted the plea for probation.
Harm caused - Admission of false testimony Defamation…
No. 11, pp. 5-6).
Complaint does not indicate whether he is suing Defendants in
their individual or official capacities. Plaintiff alleges
that he is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.
(ECF No. 11, 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)).
However, even a pro se Plaintiff must
allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim.
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
alleges that Defendants Featherson, Stewart, Parks and Watson
tampered with evidence and unlawfully arrested him in 2015,
and that he pleaded guilty to charges arising from that
arrest “under duress.” (ECF No. 11, p. 5). The
United States Supreme Court's ruling in Heck
v. Humphrey bars Plaintiff's Section 1983
lawsuit. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck court held:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called