United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lentonio Marcell Jenner filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in
the Washington County Detention Center.
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. §
to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7),
Plaintiff was denied bond in violation of his rights.
Plaintiff alleges that a defendant can only be denied bond if
the charge is a capital offense. He asserts that the
prosecutors and judge knew this, and his charge was not a
states in a page attached to the Amended Complaint that the
only Defendant who should be listed is Washington County.
(Doc. 7 at 8). Plaintiff states he made the mistake of
"putting the persons instead of the county."
Id. However, on the first page of his Amended
Complaint, he has listed in the style of the case:
"(Chloe Fackler & Casey Jones)-They are what made
this happened." Id. at 1. He also lists Deputy
Prosecutor Fackler and Judge Jones as Defendants on pages two
and three of the Complaint. Id. at 2-3. When asked
to name the Defendants who were involved in the incident,
Plaintiff responded "Washington County, [Deputy
Prosecutor] Chloe Fackler, [Judge] Casey Jones."
Id. at 6. Finally, Plaintiff has indicated that he
is suing the Defendants in their official capacities only.
relief, Plaintiff is seeking "cash." Id.
at 7. He also asks that the conduct at issue be brought to
the attention of the individual Defendants' supervisors.
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; (2) fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (3) 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
1983 cannot be used to challenge the denial of a bond, which
is a decision that impacts "the very fact or duration of
[a state prisoner's] physical imprisonment."
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
Moreover, Plaintiff's claim that he was improperly denied
bond as he awaited trial on a criminal charge is subject to
dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a civil
action for alleged civil rights violations that attacks the
validity of criminal confinement, which has not been
reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, is
not cognizable under Section 1983.
reasons stated, the claims asserted are subject to dismissal
because they are frivolous, fail to state claims upon which
relief may be granted, and are asserted against Defendants
immune from suit. Therefore, this case is DISMIS ...