United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
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
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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. (Id.).
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.” (Id. at p. 10). It
is unclear whether Plaintiff intended to assert a claim
against any of the named Defendants based on this statement.
sues Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
He seeks compensatory damages and requests
“reinstatement on parole.” (Id. at p.
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.
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