United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
RODNEY E. FOSTER PLAINTIFF
SHERIFF TIM HELDER, Washington County, Arkansas; and SMART JAIL, INC. DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
E. Foster filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington
County Detention Center (“WCDC”). The Plaintiff
names as Defendants Sheriff Tim Helder and Smart Jail, Inc.
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 to proceed in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must determine whether the
Complaint should be served on the Defendants.
to the allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), Smart Jail
was allowed to place cameras in the barracks. According to
Plaintiff, the cameras were placed in such a way that they
recorded the inmates while they were in the shower.
indicates he has also asserted an official capacity claim.
When asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the
violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff alleges
Sheriff Helder failed to give minimal oversight to private
contractors thereby allowing the Plaintiff's privacy
rights to be violated.
relief, Plaintiff asks for compensatory and punitive damages.
He also asks that the camera angles be changed so that other
inmates do not get filmed while in the shower.
the PLRA, the Court must 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.” Bell Atl. 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)).
mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153
(8th Cir. 1993); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004). “[A] pro se plaintiff requires no
special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his
alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court
is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief
can be granted.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
claims that the placement of video recording surveillance
cameras in such a way as to allow the recording of inmates in
the showers violates his right to privacy under the Fourth
Amendment. It is true that prisoners' constitutional
rights survive incarceration; however, these rights are
subject to the requirements of order and security. Pell
v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974). Prisoners are
“accorded those rights not fundamentally inconsistent
with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives
of incarceration.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 523 (1984)(citation and internal quotation marks
Hudson, the Court discussed a prisoner's right