United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. HICKEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff David Beaty 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 initial Complaint on April 24, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
That same day, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint to clarify his claims against Defendants
and submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). On May 14,
2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4).
Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP was granted the
following day. (ECF No. 7).
is currently incarcerated in the Miller County Detention
Center (“MCDC”) serving a sentence as a result of
a judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 4, p. 3). Plaintiff is
asserting claims for “jail conditions” at the
MCDC and failure of Defendants to respond to his grievances.
Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their personal and official
capacities. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
describes the acts or omissions of Defendants that form the
basis of his personal capacity claims as follows:
1st Response was: We take allegations as the one
you have made very seriously We like to remind you that
disciplinary action will be taken against you if it is found
that you've made false allegations. We will also want to
assure you that appropriate measures will be taken to address
your concerns. 2nd Response: I will inform
maintenance of your complaints. No. action has been taken -
the jail has not complied with the Safe and Sanitary Act that
is required by federal law which is laid out in the
8th & 14th Amendments.
(ECF No. 4, p. 4). In describing the official custom or
policy of Miller County that he believes contributed to the
violation of his rights Plaintiff states:
I am challenging the jail conditions due to the fact that
myself and several other inmates have put in multiple
grievances and requests but still remain in these unsanitary
conditions with no resolve. This is why I am claiming to live
in unfair and unsanitary living conditions.
(ECF No. 4, p. 5).
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. 1985).