United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS JUDGE
Christopher C. Yates, currently an inmate of the Benton
County Detention Center ("BCDC"), has filed this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis
("IFP"). Plaintiff has named as Defendants the
Benton County Sheriff, Shawn Holloway, and the Shop
Supervisor at the BCDC, James Boudreax. Plaintiff has sued
Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.
Complaint (Doc. 1) and Supplement (Doc. 4) thereto are 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).
he was working in the shop as part of a work detail program,
Plaintiff alleges Supervisor Boudreax had him use County
assets including a welder, grinder, tree machine, etc., to
complete Supervisor Boudreax's personal projects.
Plaintiff alleges that stealing from the government
constitutes a felony offense. He indicates an internal
investigation "proved [his] credibility," and his
version of the events was found to have merit.
maintains that Supervisor Boudreax's actions violated the
laws against human trafficking, extortion, and involuntary
servitude and that Sheriff Helder "allowed these to
happen to me in his care." He has requested a trial by
relief, Plaintiff seeks "[e]nough funding to start a
business" ($300, 000 to $400, 000) and "immunity
for the amount of time evidence is to be held for violent
crimes." Additionally, he seeks payment of all legal
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." BellAtl. 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)).
essential elements of a § 1983 claim are (1) that the
defendant(s) acted under color of state law, and (2) that the
alleged wrongful conduct deprived the plaintiff of a
constitutionally protected federal right." Schmidt
v. City of Bella Vista, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir.
2009). Section 1983 creates no substantive rights but
prohibits the deprivation of rights established by the United
States Constitution or federal laws. City of Okla. City
v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985). To state a claim,
plaintiff must establish that each defendant "personally
violated plaintiffs constitutional rights." Jackson
v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 543 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation
clearly were acting under color of law. The focus in this
case is on the second element.