United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
O. Hickey United States District Judge
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. § 1915A(a).
Larry David Davis filed his Complaint on January 12, 2018.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed a completed IFP application on
February 26, 2018. (ECF No. 10). He alleges his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
in the Clark County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff's
Complaint lists five numbered claims, which the Court will
Claim One, Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care from
July through December.Plaintiff alleges he informed the guards
that he had kidney damage and needed to see a doctor, but he
was never taken to see anyone concerning his kidneys.
Plaintiff names Defendants Barnes, Burdette, and “Mason
SI Andrew” for this claim. (ECF No. 1 at 4). In an
attachment to his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was
scheduled to see his normal doctor on July 1, 2017, but he
missed the appointment because he had been arrested.
Plaintiff alleges the last time he saw his normal doctor, she
told him that if his kidneys did not improve, “she was
going to send [him] to see a kidney specialist.” (ECF
No. 1 at 16). Plaintiff alleges his side hurts where his
kidneys are located. (ECF No. 1 at 16).
Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges he was denied hot food three
times a day from May 19, 2017, through December 29, 2017, and
notes that he is diabetic and suffers from high blood
pressure. Plaintiff further states the meals consisted of
cereal, fresh fruit, bologna or salami sandwiches on white
bread, and a small bag of chips. (ECF No. 1 at 5). However,
in the section for describing a custom or policy in relation
to an official capacity claim, Plaintiff also alleges
multiple other constitutional violations: there was no yard
call from May 19, 2017, through October 20, 2017; no hot
meals from May 19, 2017, through December 30, 2017; mold in
the shower; no law library; no kitchen for hot meals; no
doctor or nurse on staff; and no diabetic meals. Plaintiff
further alleges all mail was read by staff, including legal
mail; the toilets did not work; and there was no glass in the
window of the cell he was sleeping in over the winter and it
was freezing cold. Plaintiff alleges the building has been
condemned, but prisoners are still being kept in it. (ECF No.
1 at 6). On additional pages attached to his Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges eighty-five percent of the cell toilets did
not work, and he had to go to another inmate's cell to
use the toilet. (ECF No. 1 at 9). Plaintiff alleges the sink
in his cell did not work, making it impossible for him to
drink from it. (ECF No. 1 at 8).
alleges the weather was nice, but the inmates were kept
inside and denied yard call simply because the guards could
do so. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 10). Plaintiff further alleges he was
denied a diabetic snack, and his sugar levels were in the
fifties and sixties at night before lockdown. When Plaintiff
asked for a diabetic snack, he was allegedly given an apple.
(ECF No. 1 at 15). For Claim Two, Plaintiff names Defendants
Barnes, “Mason unknown, ” Burdette, Bolz, and
Watson. (ECF No. 1 at 5).
Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges there was no law library and
no law library call from May 19, 2017, through January 1,
2018. Plaintiff names Defendants Watson and Barnes for this
claim. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges the facility
“does not have a law library.” Instead, he
alleges there is a small room the size of a cell with 20 or
30 outdated books. He alleges there was no law library call
for “the last 7 months.” (ECF No. 1 at 6).
Plaintiff alleges this affected him in the following way:
I could do no research on my charge or my legal rights in
they [sic] court which caused me not to be able to prepare
myself for my rights it help [sic] them to violate the
inmates rights not having a law library.
(ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges “they should have
been having law library call at least once a week.”
(ECF No. 1 at 7).
additional sheets of paper, Plaintiff labels allegations as
Claims Four and Five. The text of these claims, however,
appear to provide narrative concerning Plaintiff's Claims
One and Two. (ECF No. 1 at 9-17). The Court will therefore
not address these as separate claims.
proceeds against the Defendants for Claims One and Three in
their official and individual capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 4,
6). Plaintiff proceeds against the Defendants in Claim Two in
their official capacities only. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 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 Atl. 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