Kendrick v. Hash

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge

         This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Hosea L Kendrick pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 4, 2019, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). The following day, the case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. (ECF No. 2). On February 11, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and file an Amended Complaint to clarify his claims. (ECF No. 5). On March 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed his IFP application (ECF No. 7) and an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP was granted the same day. (ECF No. 8).

         On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff advised the Court that he is no longer incarcerated and now resides in Stamps, Arkansas. The incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Nevada County Detention Center (“NCDC”) for violation of his probation. (ECF No. 6, p. 3). Plaintiff has named Tommi Hash and Peter Rupe, jailors at the NCDC, as Defendants. He refers to his claim as “medical”. (ECF No. 6, p. 4). Specifically, Plaintiff states:

When this happened, Tommi Hash be littled me in front of everybody in the pod. The very next day Peter Rupe did the same thing, and I took my jumpsuit off in front of everybody to prove that I did take my medication, and that it wasn't on my person. I felt embarrassed and humiliated, and that has caused mental anguish…

From the actions that took place that day, I am constantly getting picked on by the other inmates, and by me suffering from PTSD and bipolar, that has caused me a lot of mental anguish, and I did not like that at all. Plus, I take my medication because I need, and a nurse not a jail should pass out meds.^[1]

(ECF No. 6, p. 4-5). Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their individual and official capacities. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages as well as additional equitable relief stating:

I feel that I should be compensated for the mental anguish that I suffered, and the embarrassment that they caused. Also, I feel that they should be repremended or fired because I feel that the jailors shouldn't pass out medication. They should have a nurse on staff or each shift for that.

(ECF No. 6, p.7).

         II. APPLICABLE LAW

         Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen this 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. § 1915A(b).

         A claim 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)). However, 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).

         III. ...