Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Walker

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

June 18, 2018

MARQUIS JAMELE LEE ROBINSON PLAINTIFF
v.
WARDEN WALKER, Miller County Detention Center “MCDC”; KITCHEN SERGEANT, MCDC; OFFICER PEOPLES, MCDC; LIEUTENANT MILLER, MCDC and CAPTAIN ADAMS, MCDC DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge

         This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Marquis Jamele Lee Robinson 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 entity.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 11, 2018. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted the same day. (ECF No. 3). In the order granting IFP, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to clarify his claims against Defendants. Id. On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7).

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”) awaiting trial on pending criminal charges. (ECF No. 7, p. 3). He alleges his constitutional rights were violated when he found a hair in his food tray on two separate occasions. Plaintiff claims he reported the incidents to Defendant Peoples and was told “[i]t is on the kitchen.” (ECF No.7, p. 7). In addition, Plaintiff states:

My constitutional rights was violated by unclean food Service unhealthy for me to eat cross-contaminated Food when the Tray Smell Bad and the Food carts Smell The same, The Kitchen Sgt. Has a Request page But never Answers It or response to It About the uncleanness, The Kitchen Sgt Responsibilit is to provied healthy Food Service under policy . . . Warden Walker, Capt. Adams, and Lt. Miller, may not Directly Be Responsibal for the unclean Tray or for the Trays and food Carts Smelling Bad They Do Share Responsibility when a food and Health Violation is Reported The tray is till Smell, so Do the Carts, The Smell Speaks for uncleanness[.]

(ECF No. 7, p. 5).

         Plaintiff also claims his rights were violated by “Warden Walker, Capt. Adams and Lt. Miller not responding to the Reports of unclean food service[.]” (ECF No. 7, p. 6). Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff also requests that the kitchen sergeant be terminated. (ECF No. 7, p. 7).

         II. APPLICABLE LAW

         Under 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. § 1915A(b).

         A claim 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 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

          A. Unclean Food and Trays

          Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated because he was served food in the MCDC on trays that smelled bad and he found a hair in his food on two occasions. “[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility of his safety and general well-being.” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851 (1998) (citation omitted). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.