United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds in this matter pro se and seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), the Court has the obligation to screen any
complaint in which an individual has sought leave to proceed
filed her Complaint on August 7, 2019. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff
brings her complaint in both this and her underlying state
court case as a "sovereign citizen." Id.
at 9, 21-22, 25.
alleges that on March 30, 2018, Judge Charles Scott Jackson
wrote a minute order "not permitting Plaintiff to file
further documents" in her state case without prior court
approval. Id. at 5. Plaintiff attached a copy of her
complaint in the state court case, in which she sued the
Carroll County Road Department because she was walking along
CR 906 when she stepped to one side because she heard a
vehicle approaching and then fell approximately 15 feet and
was injured. Id. at 15-21. Plaintiff attached a copy
of the order issued by Judge Jackson, which stated:
This Court dismissed plaintiffs complaint by Court order
dated 1-27-17. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was
denied on 7-21-17. Since that date, plaintiff continues to
file documents herein, including a writ of garnishment,
stating she has a $2, 000, 000 judgment against the County.
This could be confusing to persons presented with this
Therefore, plaintiff shall not be permitted to file any
further documents in this case without Court approval.
Id. at 33. Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by this
order because she could not file a writ of error rescinding
the minute order. Id. at 5. She further alleges this
delayed her case and denied her due process rights.
Id. Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 242 as the
basis for federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 4.
seeks declaratory and punitive damages. She does not indicate
if she proceeds against Defendants in their official
capacity, personal capacity, or both.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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. § 1915A(b).
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neltzke 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." BellAtl. 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
Circuit Judge ...