United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
JOHN T. NIX PLAINTIFF
DR. N. VOWELL Correct Care Solutions at Ouachita River Unit, DR. T. DANIEL Correct Care Solutions at Ouachita River Unit, DR. GREGORY MCKINNEY Correct Care Solutions at Ouachita River Unit, DR. JON ALLEN University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
MARK E. FORD 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 Susan O. Hickey, Chief 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 February 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1). On
February 6, 2019, the Court entered an Order directing
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff did so on February 13, 2019. (ECF No. 10). He then
filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 26, 2019. (ECF
alleges his rights were violated by the medical care he
received from Correct Care Solutions medical staff starting
in July 2015 and ending in November 2019. (ECF No. 13 at 4).
he alleges that he was prescribed the medication Viread for
his HIV, which caused him to suffer Stage Three kidney
disease. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Allen, a specialist at the University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences, told him Correct Care Solutions would not let him
provide Plaintiff with HIV medication that
“wouldn't hurt” him “due to
cost.” (Id. at 6). This caused him
“permanent, painful body damage.” (Id.
proceeds against all Defendants in their personal and
official capacities. (Id. at 4, 18). He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 20).
the PLRA, the Court is obliged 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).
Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff alleges his claims begin in July 2015 and end in
November 2019. He commenced this action on February 5,
2019. Thus, any of Plaintiff's claims which occurred
prior to February 5, 2016 are barred by the statute of
limitations. Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of
limitation. Instead, causes of action under § 1983 are
governed by “the most appropriate or analogous state
statute of limitations.” Goodman v. Lukens Steel
Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660 (1987) (§ 1981 case).
See also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268 (1985)
(§ 1983 case); Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262,
265-266 (8th Cir. 1996) (§ 1985 case). In Arkansas, this
is the three-year personal injury statute of ...