United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
JEREMY R. BARA PLAINTIFF
DEPUTY LITZINGER, Washington County Detention Center DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jeremy R. Bara, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington
County Detention Center (WCDC). Plaintiff maintains his
constitutional rights were violated when the Defendant used
excessive physical force against him.
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 Complaint (ECF No. 1), when inmates
are brought in from yard call they are subject to being
searched while placed along a wall. Plaintiff alleges that on
June 25, 2018, Defendant “kicked” his right ankle
without first asking him to spread his legs. Plaintiff
maintains his right ankle was injured.
asserts that he was immediately taken to see the nurse, who
concluded it “looked like a busted blood vessel.”
Plaintiff was prescribed Naproxen and an ice pack.
has sued the Defendant in both his individual and official
capacities. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
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
is a pretrial detainee. (ECF No. 1 at 3). The Supreme Court
has held that a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim
should be analyzed under an objective reasonableness
standard. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, et al, ___
U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). The objective
reasonableness of a use of force "turns on the
'facts and circumstances of each particular
case.'" Id. (quoting Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). The determination
should be made:
from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. A
court must also account for the "legitimate interests
that stem from [the government's] need to manage the
facility in which the individual is detained,"
appropriately deferring to "policies and practices that
in th[e] judgment" of jail officials "are needed to
preserve internal ...