United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
CHARLES SAMUEL JOHNSON JR. PLAINTIFF
SERGEANT GRIFFIE, Miller County Detention Center “MCDC”; CAPTAIN ADAMS, MCDC; JANE DOE, Guard MCDC; CORPORAL POOLE, MCDC; and K. WATSON, Disciplinary Committee MCDC DEFENDANTS
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge.
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Charles Samuel
Johnson Jr. 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 the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”). Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court must
screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity, officer or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on
September 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the Court
granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis
application. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated
in the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”).
Plaintiff asserts two claims.
asserts Claim One against Defendants Griffie, Doe, Poole, and
Watson. Plaintiff describes Claim One as “Terrorist
Threat, Abuse of Power, Inciting Violence.” (ECF No. 1,
p. 5). He claims that on August 22, 2019, he called Defendant
Griffie a racial slur. He alleges that Defendant Griffie
demanded that he submit to handcuffs, and that Plaintiff
complied. Defendant Griffie then allegedly removed the
handcuffs and threatened Plaintiff, telling him that the only
thing keeping him from beating Plaintiff up was his kids.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Griffie was then about to
strike Plaintiff but was talked out of it by an unknown
female guard. Plaintiff alleges further that Defendants
Poole and Watson witnessed this incident but did nothing.
asserts Claim Two against Defendant Adams. Plaintiff
describes Claim Two as “Abuse of Power.”
Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendant Adams that Defendant
Griffie had threatened him. Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Adams reviewed video footage of the incident but took no
disciplinary action against Defendant Griffie. Thus,
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Adams is covering up crimes
in the MCDC.
proceeds against Defendants in their individual and official
capacities. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and
asks for damages for “pain & suffering also mental
anguish.” Id. at p. 9.
the PLRA, the Court must screen this 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 Atl. 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)).
However, 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).
Court will begin by separately addressing Plaintiff's two
claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.
Then the Court will address Plaintiffs official capacity
claims that Defendant Griffie verbally threatened him with
violence on one occasion and that Defendants Doe, Poole, and