United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
JESSE QUINCY COLLINS, JR. PLAINTIFF
SHERIFF MIKE CASH, CHIEF DEPUTY RICHARD TOLLISON, ADMINISTRATOR KEN FAIN, and ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR T.J. BURNETT Hot Spring County Jail 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 March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 1). He Filed
a Motion to Amend with his Complaint (ECF No. 6), which was
refiled as a Supplement on March 28, 2018. (ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated by
Defendants during his incarceration in the Hot Spring County
Jail. Plaintiff alleges he is indigent and Defendants denied
him two stamped envelopes a week. He further alleges that
there is no commissary in the jail where he could buy stamps
or envelopes. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges he was
informed by a jailer that the jail would no longer provide
stamped envelopes for indigent inmates; instead they would
need to have family provide them. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff
alleges the lack of stamped envelopes prevented him from
contacting his family and his attorney. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
alleges Defendants placed an inmate with tuberculosis in
Plaintiff's pod instead of quarantining him. (ECF No. 1
at 7; 9 at 3). He alleges that the jail did not have
tuberculosis lights, and, as a result, he and other inmates
in the pod became ill. He alleges he asked to be tested for
tuberculosis but has not received any testing. (ECF No. 1 at
6-7). Plaintiff alleges he was in the facility in 2011 or
2012, and there were no tuberculosis lights at that time
either. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
alleges Defendants denied him “fresh air exercise or
recreation.” (ECF No. 1 at 7). He alleges the jail
violated his right to go outside every day. (ECF No. 1 at 7).
Plaintiff alleges that the denial of fresh air outdoors has
caused him headaches, nausea, breathing problems, muscle
aches, and bone aches. (ECF Nos. 1 at 7; 9 at 4).
proceeds against all Defendants for all claims in their
personal and official capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 6, 7).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He further
asks that the facility “fix everything.” (ECF No.
1 at 8).
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)). 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).
allegation that he was denied his right to go outdoors for
“fresh air exercise or recreation” fails to state
a plausible claim. A constitutional violation can exist if
prison officials are deliberately indifferent to an
inmate's exercise needs. Wishon v. Gammon, 978
F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). A “lack of exercise may
be a constitutional violation if one's muscles are
allowed to atrophy or if an inmate's health is
threatened.” Id. Here, Plaintiff did not
allege that he was denied ...