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.

Doering v. Kelley

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

July 9, 2018

ALAN DOERING, ADC #106115 PLAINTIFF
v.
WENDEY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedure for Filing Objections

         This 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 Recommendation.

         If no 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.

         II. Discussion

         A. Background

         Alan 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.

         B. Standard

         In 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.

         C. Failure-to-Protect Claim

         1. Factual Allegations

         According 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.

         Following 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)

         On or about, May 18, 2018, Mr. Doering was transferred to the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) ...


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.