United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Procedure for Filing Objections
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may file
written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be
specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the
objection. To be considered, objections must be received in
the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this
objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, parties may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
Doering, an Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit without the
help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry
#2) He claims that ADC officers failed to protect him from
serious threats made by other inmates. (Docket entry #2) The
Court allowed Mr. Doering to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), despite his litigation
history, based on allegations that he faced imminent physical
injury. Defendants have now moved to revoke Mr. Doering's
IFP status and to dismiss all pending claims. (#21, #23) Mr.
Doering has not filed a response to the motion, but he has
filed a number of motions that remain pending in this case.
The Court will consider Mr. Doering's verified complaint
and supplemental filings in reviewing the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.
deciding whether Mr. Doering has stated a federal claim for
relief, the Court must determine whether he has pleaded facts
with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint cannot simply “[leave] open the
possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some
‘set of undisclosed facts' to support
recovery.” Id. at 561 (citation omitted).
Rather, the facts set forth in the complaint must be
sufficient to “nudge [the] claims across the line
from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 547.
to Mr. Doering's complaint, on April 10, 2018, while he
was housed in general population at the Wrightsville Unit,
several inmates affiliated with the Aryan brotherhood
physically threatened him. After he reported the threats to
staff members, Captain Young placed him on investigative
status. (#2 at p.7) The following day, Mr. Doering appeared
before Defendants Harris and Lowe at “restrictive
housing review.” At that time, Mr. Doering requested
“P.C. single man status.” (#2 at p.7) Defendants
Harris and Lowe asked Mr. Doering to identify the inmates who
had threatened him, but he refused.
the review hearing, Defendant Felts escorted Mr. Doering to
his cell and instructed him to pack his belongings so that he
could return to general population. Mr. Doering refused
Defendant Felts's order. As a result, Mr. Doering
received a major disciplinary and was sentenced to fifteen
days in punitive isolation. In a supplement to his amended
complaint, Mr. Doering complains that, rather than being
placed in protective custody, Defendants “ordered him
to indefinite restrictive housing 24 hour a day lock
down.” (#12 at p.1)
about, May 18, 2018, Mr. Doering was transferred to the East
Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) ...