United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to
the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
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).
filed his initial Complaint on April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
That same day, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint to clarify his claims against Defendants
and to submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2). On May 11, Plaintiff filed
his IFP application and Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 7).
His application to proceed IFP was granted on May 14, 2018.
(ECF No. 8).
alleges his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Center (MCDC) as
a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff alleges his rights were
violated by unidentified “jail conditions” which
were “unsafe and unsanitary.” (ECF No. 7 at 4-5).
He alleges he submitted multiple requests and grievances, but
“no action was taken by the proper authority to fix
[the conditions].” (Id.).
proceeds against all Defendants in their official and
personal capacity. (Id. at 4). He seeks compensatory
and punitive damages. (Id. at 7).
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.
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 Atlantic 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)). 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).
Response to Grievances
failed to state a plausible claim against Defendants based on
their lack of response to his grievances. The Eighth Circuit
has made it clear prisoners do not have a constitutional
right to a prison grievance procedure. Lomholt v.
Holder, 287 F.3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (no claim when
“various defendants denied his grievances or otherwise
refused to help him”); Buckley v. Barlow, 997
F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993) (no claim when defendants failed
to timely and properly respond to a grievance). Thus, a
prison official's failure to properly respond to a
grievance, standing alone, is not actionable under §
1983. Id. As there is no constitutional right to
either a grievance procedure or a grievance response,
Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim based on
Defendants' lack of response to his grievances.