United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge
Rodney Williams initiated this case by filing a “Notice
of Demand . . . .” (Dkt. No. 2). Before the Court is
Mr. Williams' motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) and motion for discovery (Dkt. No.
4). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1). The Court
denies without prejudice at this time Mr. Williams'
motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 4). Additionally, Mr.
Williams' complaint contains vague claims against
multiple parties and must be amended. Accordingly, if Mr.
Williams intends to pursue this lawsuit, he must submit, no
later than 30 days after the entry date of this Order, an
amended complaint containing the information specified in
Section III of this Order. Mr. Williams' failure to do so
could result in the dismissal of his complaint.
In Forma Pauperis Application
on Mr. Williams' application, he has neither the funds
nor the income to pay the filing fee. Therefore, the Court
grants his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
permits Mr. Williams to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee (Dkt. No. 1).
Motion For Discovery
Williams filed a motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 4). His
motion is premature, based on the stage of this litigation.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. A defendant or defendants in
this action have not been served with Mr. Williams'
complaint. The Court denies the motion without prejudice.
Mr. Williams is not incarcerated, pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the Court must screen Mr. Williams' complaint to
determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2); Key
v. Does, 217 F.Supp.3d 1006, 1007 (E.D. Ark. 2016)
(“Although some district courts have limited section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) pre-service dismissal to litigants who are
prisoners, . . . all of the circuit courts to address the
issue have held that nonprisoner complaints can be screened
and dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B).”)
(citing Michau v. Charleston Cty., S.C., 434 F.3d
725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006); Lister v. Dep't of
Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005);
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir.
2000); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608
(6th Cir. 1997) overruled on other grounds by LaFountain
v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013)).
Williams' complaint is vague and confusing. Specifically,
Mr. Williams states that “[t]he intention of this
notice of demand is for this court to redress and remedy a
default judgment entered against Rodney Williams by a court
without jurisdiction to enter default judgment” (Dkt.
No. 2, at 2). Mr. Williams does not, however, identify the
court that he is seeking relief against, nor does he identify
which default judgment he is challenging. Instead, Mr.
Williams identifies the Arkansas Department of Child Support
as the only defendant in this action. Further, throughout his
complaint, Mr. Williams argues that “[t]his Court must
clarify the evidence it relied upon, ” implying that he
is challenging a default entered by this Court (Dkt. No. 2,
at 5). This Court is unaware of any default judgment having
been entered against Mr. Williams by this Court. Two months
after filing his complaint, Mr. Williams filed a document
titled “Income Withholding For Support, ” but he
does not specify how this document is related to his claims
(Dkt. No. 3). Thus, it is unclear to the Court exactly which
judgment and court Mr. Williams intends to challenge in his
complaint. Further, it is unclear what role, if any, the
Arkansas Office of Child Support played in the events about
which Mr. Williams complains.
Mr. Williams must submit an amended complaint within 30 days
from the date of this Order that complies with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and: (1) identifies the claims he
intends to bring; (2) identifies the defendants he intends to
sue; (3) contains a short statement of the specific role each
defendant played or the specific acts each defendant took in
causing the alleged injuries over which Mr. Williams intends
to sue; and (4) describes the injuries Mr. Williams
sustained. Mr. Williams' failure to comply with this
Order could result in the dismissal of his lawsuit.
See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules of the
United States District Court for the Eastern and Western
Districts of Arkansas (“If any communication from the
Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without
prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be
expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of
therefore ordered that:
Williams' motion for leave to proceed in forma