United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs 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)(2Oll), 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. § l9l5A(a).
filed his Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis on May 3, 2018. (ECF No. 1). His Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was denied that same
day pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1915(g) because he had previously
earned PLRA three-strike status and had not alleged he was
currently under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
(ECF No. 3). On June 18, 2018, the Court entered an Order
rescinding the denial of IFP and granting IFP status as
Plaintiff had provided evidence that he was the plaintiff in
only two of the prior cases which constituted strikes. (ECF
alleges his rights were violated while he was incarcerated in
the Hot Spring County Detention Center (HSCDC). (ECF No. 1 at
4). He alleges that on September 17, 2017, he was denied
access to the law library and access to legal help by
Defendants Cash, Tollison, Fain and Burnett. (Id. at
5). He alleges Defendant Cash told him there were no plans to
have a law library or law materials because "his jailers
don't have time for that." Plaintiff alleges this
caused him to be "worried sick" because he had been
locked up for seven months with no way to help himself in
court. Plaintiff names Defendants Tollison, Fain, and Burnett
as the jail staff involved in this denial but does not
describe the facts of their involvement.
alleges he filed a grievance about the lack of access to the
law library and legal help, and jailers retaliated against
him fordoing so. Specifically, he alleges Defendant Cash
called a meeting after which inmate mail rights and food
portions were reduced by at least one-half for the entire
jail, and all inmates were denied recreation for seven
months. (Id. at 6, 12, 16). Plaintiff names
Defendants Tollison, Fain, and Burnett as the jail staff
involved in this retaliation but does not describe the facts
of their involvement.
alleges the facility lacked tuberculosis lights in the pods,
which caused him to be worried about his health.
(Id. at 6).
proceeds against all Defendant in their official and personal
capacity. (Id. at 5, 6, 12). He seeks compensatory
and punitive damages. (Id. at 15).
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 apro 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 apro se
Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a
claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th