United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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 November 28, 2018. (ECF No. 1). That
same day the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff IFP
status and directing him to file an Amended Complaint by
December 17, 2018. (ECF No. 3). In the Order, Plaintiff was
advised that failure to comply with this Order would result
in the dismissal of his case. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Address Change on December 19, 2018 (ECF No. 8), but he did
not file his Amended Complaint and did not otherwise
communicate with the Court. On January 9, 2019, the Court
entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff did so on January 24, 2019. (ECF No.
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”), Grimes Unit. His Amended
Complaint addresses alleged violations of his constitutional
rights which occurred during his incarceration in the
Sebastian County Detention Center (SCDC). (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff alleges he was “jumped” by two inmates
in pod GG of SCDC. He alleges the incident and treatment
occurred on May 10, 2018 through the second week of May. He
suffered a broken eye socket, broken ribs, and a mild
concussion from the attack. (Id. at 4). He was taken
to the hospital emergency room and received treatment for
these conditions. He alleges, however, that Defendants
Hollenbeck, Eddie Smith, and Ashley Smith refused to pay for
his medical bills, telling him they were his responsibility.
Plaintiff argues SCDC should pay for the medical bills
because he was in the care and custody of the facility when
he was attacked. (Id. at 5-6).
further alleges he was placed in a cell in the medical
section of SCDC and given 800 milligrams of ibuprofen twice
daily from May 10, 2018 through the second week of May.
(Id. at 6). He alleges this did not stop his pain,
and when he asked form something stronger, he was denied. He
names Defendants Hollenbeck, Eddie Smith, and Ashley Smith
for this claim. (Id.). As a result, Plaintiff
alleges he was in pain, had difficulty breathing, and kept
getting headaches. (Id. at 8). He alleges Defendants
would not take him back to the hospital to see a doctor.
(Id. at 7).
Plaintiff alleges SCDC has “improper grievance
procedures and protocol.” (Id. at 8). He
alleges it is not operated according to state grievance
procedure, and most grievances do not receive a response
because “there's really no problem
solvers.” (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against
all Defendant in both their official and personal capacity.
(Id. at 4, 6, 8). He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. He also wants the sheriff to provide him with a copy
of one of his grievances, his medical records from the
hospital, and the names of the officers who worked the shift
during which the inmate assault occurred.
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. 1985).
fails to allege a cognizable claim against Doe Jailer.
“Liability under Section 1983 requires a causal link
to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of
rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203,
1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 370 (1976)). Thus, to state a cognizable Section
1983 claim, a complaint must set forth specific factual
allegations showing what each named defendant allegedly did,
or failed to do, that allegedly violated the plaintiff's
federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged a
causal link between Doe Jailer and his claims. Instead, he
merely lists this jailer in the caption of the case. Merely
listing a defendant in a case caption is insufficient to
support a claim against the defendant. Krych v.
Hass, 83 Fed.Appx. 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing
Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974)
(per curiam) (noting that court properly dismissed pro se
complaint that was silent as to defendant except for his name
appearing in caption)).