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, 6).
His application to proceed IFP was granted on May 18, 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 “jail conditions.” (ECF No. 6 at 4,
5). He identifies these conditions as mold in the shower,
water leaking from the ventilation, non-functional fire
detectors, clogged drains in the shower, twenty-eight inmates
living in “Max-D, ” and food which is sometimes
served cold. (Id. at 6). He alleges he and other
inmates reported “all kinds of things that do not work,
” but nothing was fixed. (Id. at 5).
proceeds against all Defendants in their official capacity.
(Id. at 5, 6). He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. (Id. at 8).
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).
failed to state any plausible official capacity claims
against any Defendant. According to Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, Defendant Runion is the Sheriff of Miller County.
Defendants Walker, Adams, Griffen, and Hanning are identified
as employees of MCDC. Under Section 1983, a defendant may be
sued in either his individual capacity, or in his official
capacity, or in both. In Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d
907 (8th Cir. 1998), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
discussed the distinction between individual and official
capacity suits. As explained by the Court in Gorman:
“Claims against government actors in their individual
capacities differ from those in their official capacities as
to the type of conduct that is actionable and as to the type
of defense that is available. See Hafer v. Melo, 502
U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). Claims
against individuals in their official capacities are
equivalent to claims against the entity for which they work;
they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity
violated the plaintiff's rights, and the only type of
immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.
Id. 502 U.S. at 24-27, 112 S.Ct. at 361-62 (1991).
Personal capacity claims, on the other hand, are those which
allege personal liability for individual actions by ...