United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Trey L. Monaco, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
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).
to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), from
March 19, 2018, to March 22, 2018, Plaintiff, who was housed
in isolation, did not receive his daily hour out of his cell.
He contends this constituted cruel and unusual punishment
that caused “temporary insanity.” Plaintiff
alleges Sergeant Seth Partain, Sergeant Jeb Byrd, Sergeant
Misty Thomson, and Sergeant John Byrd “failed to do
th[ei]r duties” when they did not let him have his hour
out for “3 days straight.” Plaintiff alleges the
sergeants “run the pods” and Sheriff Helder
“is over the jail.” Plaintiff further alleges he
was treated inhumanely. He indicates that while he was in
isolation he attempted to strangle himself. He alleges the
sergeants “have a duty to fulfill and failed to do
that.” With respect to Sheriff Helder, Plaintiff
alleges he is over the jail and failed to make sure the
sergeants performed their duties. Plaintiff asserts that the
harm caused was “temporary insanity.”
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.
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) seek 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 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)).
mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153
(8th Cir. 1993); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). “[A] pro se plaintiff
requires no special legal training to recount the facts
surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such
facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a
claim on which relief can be granted.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(citations
1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation,
under color of law, of a citizen's "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. In order to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that the
defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated
a right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional;
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for
deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986).
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const.
amend. VIII. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the
Eighth Amendment forbids conditions that involve the
“wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, ” or
are “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the
crime.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
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 for his
safety and general well-being.” County of
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851 (1998)(citation
omitted). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable