United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Â§
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
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 in the Eastern District of Arkansas on
March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this
District on March 25, 2019. (ECF No. 3). On March 27, 2019,
the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 7) directing Plaintiff to
file an Amended Complaint, which he did on April 3, 2019.
(ECF No. 9).
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”) Barbara Ester Unit. (ECF No. 9
at 2). His Complaint centers on his time at the Arkansas
Community Correction (“ACC”) Omega Supervision
Sanction Center, prior to his transfer to the ADC.
(Id. at 3-7). Plaintiff alleges that on July 20,
2018, as well as “many dates” between April 24
and August 14, 2018, he was denied medical care.
Specifically, he alleges his legs became swollen around his
knees and ankles, with large knots “all over
them.” He alleges this caused him to suffer extreme
pain. (Id. at 4). He alleges it took three sick
calls before he was seen, at which time Nurse Aunspaugh
“failed to treat or diagnose” him.
(Id.). He states that this violated ACC policy
because he was not seen or treated within 72 hours of his
first request. (Id. at 5). He alleges this delay in
treatment caused him to suffer nerve damage and severe pain.
(Id.). Plaintiff names Correct Care Solution
employee Nurse Aunspaugh for this claim.
also alleges that on July 20, 2019, he passed out in his
cell, hitting his head and injuring his back. This left him
unable to walk, stand, or sit. (Id. at 5). He was
rolled onto a board and carried to the infirmary by ACC
staff. At the infirmary, he was looked over
“briefly” but was not taken to a hospital to
receive any x-rays, MRI, or other tests. (Id. at 6).
Instead, he was carried back to his segregation cell and left
on a rack with no mat and no blanket. (Id.) As a
result he now suffers from “bad neck and back
pain.” (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff names
Defendants Aunspaugh, Grooms, Trotter, Correct Care Solution,
and the Omega Supervised Sanction Program for this claim.
alleges he was forced to stand and walk on his injured legs
while in the ACC. He further alleges he was “wrongfully
kicked out” of the program and transferred to the ADC
due to his illness. (Id. 6). Plaintiff names the
Omega Program, Defendant Glover and Defendant Jackson for
this claim. Plaintiff attached a revocation letter to his
first Complaint. In this letter, Defendant Glover requests a
revocation of supervised probation for Plaintiff because he
was disruptive and had to be monitored by staff to ensure he
did not cause harm to himself or others. (ECF No. 2 at 7).
Glover further writes that Plaintiff was seen by medical
staff who confirmed he did not need any medical
accommodations and he showed no remorse for his actions
during his disciplinary court hearing. (Id.).
proceeds against all Defendants in their personal and
official capacity. (Id. at 4-6). He seeks
compensatory damages. (Id. at 7).
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).