Anderson v. Moody

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

         This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Anthony D Anderson, 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 24, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division on June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 3). On June 28, 2019, this Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and file an Amended Complaint by July 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion to Proceed IFP on July 9, 2019. (ECF Nos. 7, 8). His application to proceed IFP was granted the same day. (ECF No. 9).

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, North Central Unit, serving a sentence as a result of a judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 7, p. 15). Plaintiff has named Ruby Moody, Nick Mayfield, Jamie Vandiver, and Lisa Mills Wilkins as Defendants in this action. Defendants Moody, Mayfield, and Vandiver are parole officers. Defendant Wilkins is an administrative law judge who presided over Plaintiff's parole revocation hearing.

         Plaintiff claims he was “doing a 7 day sanction for abscond and I was held for 10 days and right before I was release Mrs. Mood[y] issued another abscond warrant on me on the 26 of July 2018 and I was not release until July 27, 2018.” (ECF No. 7, p. 4). He further accuses Defendant Moody of “lying on official document, abuse of power, cruel and unusual treatment.” (Id. at p. 5).

         Plaintiff claims Defendant Mayfield made a false statement at Plaintiff's parole revocation hearing on May 7, 2019, when he testified that “I was playing shadow games with him saying that I was calling his office after hours and he also lied saying that I was behind on my fee when I was not and I can prove the he gave a false statement because can pull my phone records.” (Id.). Plaintiff also states Defendant Mayfield was “lieing on an official document and abuse and cruel unusual treatment.” (Id. at p. 6).

         As for Defendant Wilkins, the judge presiding over his parole hearing, Plaintiff claims he “was denied a [public defender] on the ground that I have a 12 grade education and my hearing was postponed by the hearing judge because the parole officer didn't have all the right documentation at that time so I ask for a dismissal and reinstatement and she said that's not how it works.” (Id. at p. 7).

         Regarding Defendant Vandiver, Plaintiff simply states that he asked “Mrs. Jamie Vandiver why is she on my paperwork for a violation for 4-8-19 when I was already incarcerated on the 4-12-19 because I have never had Mrs. Vandiver as a parole officer are had Drug Court and when I ask Mrs. Vandiver she said that she din't know why its on there.” (Id. at p. 9). He also claims Defendant Vandiver did not have all the proper documentation at his parole hearing on April 30, 2019.^[1] (Id.).

         Finally, Plaintiff claims on “6-18-19 I receive a time card saying that I doing a 12 mo probation revocation for forgery a charge that I got back in 2005 and her is the docket number CR-2005-0108 CR-2005-108.”^[2] (Id. at p. 10). It is unclear whether Plaintiff intended to assert a claim against any of the named Defendants based on this statement.

         Plaintiff sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities. He seeks compensatory damages and requests “reinstatement on parole.” (Id. at p. 7).

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen a 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 ...