United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. 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).
filed his Complaint on October 5, 2017, in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this
District on March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 3). On March 29, 2018,
the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint on April 16, 2018. (ECF No. 10).
allegations arise from a search of his premises by probation
officers and Scott County Sheriff's deputies on February
27, 2014, his subsequent prosecution for burglary and theft
in November 2014, and his sentencing in December of 2014.
(ECF No. 10).
alleges Judge Ramey, on December 2, 2014, violated his double
jeopardy rights when he sentenced him twice for one burglary.
Plaintiff alleges he was sentenced to pay $3, 900.00 in
restitution when the amount, by law, should have been $90.00.
He further alleges he was charged restitution for the theft
charge, which was dismissed. (ECF No. 10 at 4).
alleges Defendant Tatum, a prosecutor, filed a “false
police report” which charged him with burglary, theft,
and a probation violation. (ECF No. 10 at 3, 5). Plaintiff
alleges Tatum “pressed the issue” of restitution,
forcing Plaintiff to pay excessive restitution. (ECF No. 10
alleges Defendants Martin and Pennington allowed the
Sheriff's deputies to “use [their] authority”
as probation officers to permit the police to search for
evidence when there was no probable cause for a search. (ECF
No. 10 at 5-6).
alleges Defendants Pyles and Cornahan “used the
authority of probation officers” to enter
Plaintiff's premises without probable cause. Plaintiff
alleges Pyles found two propane bottles and promptly arrested
him without explaining why or reading him his rights. (ECF
No. 10 at 6).
alleges Judge Ryan knowingly and willfully signed an invalid
“fake search warrant for Defendant Pyles to help cover
up a[n] illegal search.” (ECF No. 10 at 7). Plaintiff
alleges the search occurred at 9:30 a.m. on February 27,
2014, and Judge Ryan signed the search warrant at 2:38 p.m.
the same day.
alleges Defendant Vaden, the Chief Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, filed a “false police report” which
charged him with burglary, theft, and a probation violation.
He further alleges Vaden “pressed the issue” of
restitution, forcing Plaintiff to pay excessive restitution.
(ECF No. 10 at 8).
proceeds against Defendants in their personal and official
capacities for all claims. (ECF No. 10 at 11-13). Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 10 at 14).
Plaintiff also asks that all property taken from him be
returned, his vehicle be repaired, the charges be dismissed,
and the restitution payments be stopped or stayed. (ECF No.
10 at 14).
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 ...