United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011),
the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making a Report and Recommendation.
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 Complaint on December 3, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated
while he was serving a one hundred and eighty (180) day
sanction sentence in the Arkansas Community Correction (ACC)
Omega Supervision Sanction Center. (Id. at 4). He
alleges Defendant Glover and Defendant White intentionally
submitted false documentation and statements to the Arkansas
Parole Board recommending his parole be revoked. Based on
these false representations, Plaintiff was arrested and
imprisoned. (Id. at 5-7). Plaintiff alleges he was
denied the right to be represented by counsel at the parole
revocation hearing, and therefore his evidence was
disregarded. (Id. at 5-6). Instead, the Parole Board
relied upon the false evidence and statements. As a result,
Plaintiff's parole was revoked. (Id. at 5-7). He
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction North Central Unit. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff
further alleges “the Arkansas Parole Board was used as
a weapon in a hate crime committed against me for filing a
complaint about a threat made to me from members of the Aryan
Brotherhood.” (Id. at 6). Plaintiff provided
copies of ACC Complaint and Grievance Forms concerning the
Aryan Brotherhood threat and his concerns with his parole
revocation hearing. (Id. at 21-42).
proceeds against all Defendants in their official and
personal capacity. (Id. 5-7). He seeks punitive
damages, to have his parole revocation overturned, and to
resume parole supervision. (Id. at 17).
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.
Arkansas Community Correction
claims against the ACC are subject to dismissal. States and
state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit
under § 1983. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356
(1990); Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491
U.S. 58 (1989); McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 618
(8th Cir. 2008).
Official Capacity Claims
official capacity claims against Defendants Glover and White
are subject to dismissal. An official capacity claim against
an ACC employee is essentially a claim against the State of
Arkansas. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a
State by citizens of that same State in federal court.”
Williams v. Missouri,973 F.2d 599, 599-600 (8th
Cir. 1992) (citing Papasan v. Allain,478 U.S. 265,
276 (1986)). “This bar exists whether the relief sought
is legal or equitable.” Id. (quoting
Papasan, 478 U.S. at 276). “Congress did not
abrogate constitutional sovereign immunity when enacting the
law that was to become section 1983.” Burk v.