United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
CLARENCE WILLIAMS, JR. PLAINTIFF
MRS. HOSMAN, et. al. DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to
the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
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).
filed his Complaint on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He
alleges his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC)
Ouachita River Unit. (ECF No. 2). For his first claim,
Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care in July of 2017
when Defendant Hosman assigned him to do utility work when he
was a medically restricted inmate. Plaintiff alleges the work
“caused [his] leg to swell due to metal rod inserted
and hip to hurt due to hip implant.” Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Ashcraft “wrote disciplinaries” and he
was punished “when the pain was to[o] bad to make it
out of bed.” (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff also sues
Defendant Hosman in her official capacity, alleging it was
Defendant Hosman's job to check medical restrictions, she
was informed of her error by an infirmary manager, and she
refused to correct the error for several months. (ECF No. 1
second claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Melugin
“disrespected” him on July 4, 2017. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Melugin “mocked the
[H]onorable Muhammed” on July 4, 2017, by stating
“my name is Muhammed” and “denied several
inmates religious diets of no pork.” (ECF No. 1 at 7).
While he makes a general statement about freedom of religion,
Plaintiff makes no specific official capacity claim against
Defendant Melugin. (ECF No. 1 at 8).
third claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Faust and Defendant
Kelley denied him access to the grievance process and he
therefore suffered mental anguish on June 22, July 17, 18,
and 24, and September 26, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 8). Here
Plaintiff makes the general statement that “every
citizen of the U.S. has the right to grieve and have their
voice heard, ” but he makes no specific official
capacity claim against either Defendant Faust or Defendant
Kelley. (ECF No. 1 at 11).
attached sheet, Plaintiff listed several other allegations.
The Court will address them as separate claims.
fourth claim, Plaintiff alleges that, on unspecified dates,
Defendant Jackson ignored inmate complaints and requests. The
Court will interpret this as an allegation that Defendant
Jackson denied Plaintiff access to the grievance process.
(ECF No. 1 at 9).
fifth claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maxwell refused
to acknowledge that keeping lights on for 24 hours a day in
the isolation cells causes sleep deprivation and refused to
make appropriate changes. (ECF No. 1 at 9). This will be
interpreted as an unconstitutional conditions of confinement
sixth claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Louis denied
him his cardiovascular (heart-healthy) diet tray for seven
days. (ECF No. 1 at 9). Plaintiff also alleges in Claims
seven, eight, and nine that Defendants Keener, Watkins, and
McDonald also denied him his cardiovascular diet tray for an
unspecified period of time while he was housed in isolation.
(ECF No. 1 at 9). These will be interpreted as denial of
adequate medical care claims.
proceeds against the Defendants named in the first three
claims in their official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 1
at 6-8). Plaintiff does not specify the capacity in which he
sues the Defendants named in his remaining claims. Plaintiff
seeks (1) compensatory and punitive damages, (2) to have the
Defendants terminated from their positions in the ADC, and
(3) to be released from the ADC or transferred to another
Unit as soon as possible. (ECF No. 1 at 11).
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 ...