United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Thomas Waylon Boyd
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro
se and in forma pauperis. The case is currently
before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), which provides that the Court must
screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
currently an inmate in the Bowie County Correctional Center
in Texarkana, Texas, filed this action in the Eastern
District of Arkansas on July 1, 2019. (ECF No. 2). The case
was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas,
Texarkana Division, on July 9, 2019. (ECF No. 5). Although
Plaintiff did not specifically state under what federal
statute he was seeking relief, the Court interpreted his
Complaint as an attempt to file a civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Complaint, Plaintiff named the following individuals as
Defendants: Judge Duncan Culpepper, Prosecuting Attorney
Phillip Harris, Public Defender Danny Rogers, Officer Tim
McBrayer, Officer Sean Clark, Attorney Justin Hurst, Sheriff
Singleton, Judge Randal Wright, Prosecuting Attorney Kolby
Harper, Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Ford, Public Defender
Joe T. Tyler, Officer/Deputy Bo Morris, Officer/Deputy Brown,
Officer/Deputy Sergeant Hughes, Evans “Parole, ”
Deputy Simmons “Parole, ” Prosecutor Traci
Graham, and Attorney Billy Moritz. (ECF No. 2).
Complaint was not submitted on the section 1983 form approved
for the Western District of Arkansas and many of his claims
appeared to be frivolous or were asserted against individuals
who are immune from suit. Consequently, the Court directed
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). On July
25, 2019, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 10). However, Plaintiff did not use the Court-approved
section 1983 form provided to him. Rather, Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint was a confusing, eighty-four-page
handwritten narrative that did not clearly identify the named
Defendants or Plaintiff's claims against
Court then ordered Plaintiff to submit a second amended
complaint on or before August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 11). This
order specifically directed Plaintiff to submit no more than
a total of twenty pages identifying the named Defendants and
stating his claims against them. On August 23, 2019,
Plaintiff submitted a Second Amended Complaint consisting of
fifty-eight pages. (ECF No. 12). Because Plaintiff failed to
comply with this Court's order to submit a total of
twenty pages to state his claims, the Court struck
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13).
However, the Court gave Plaintiff another opportunity to
submit a Second Amended Complaint that complied with the
end, Plaintiff was again directed to submit a second amended
complaint on the Court's approved section 1983 form,
limited to twenty pages. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff was also
given the following directives: (1) fill out the entire form
referring only to No. 4:19-cv-04077 in the case caption and
do not attempt to file additional lawsuits in this case; (2)
identify each named Defendant, indicating his or her name,
position, relationship to Plaintiff, place of employment and
address on consecutive pages; (3) write short, plain
statements telling the Court the constitutional right
Plaintiff believes was violated by each named Defendant,
exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do, how the
action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the
violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights and what
specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that individual
Defendant's conduct; (4) do not include any motions with
the Second Amended Complaint; and (5) do not include a
request for habeas relief. (Id. at pp.
2-4). The Court also informed Plaintiff that this case would
be subject to dismissal if he failed to submit a Second
Amended Complaint which complied with those instructions.
(Id. at p. 4).
filed his Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2019.
(ECF No. 14). Plaintiff's thirty-four-page Second Amended
Complaint is difficult to decipher because he attempts to
assert unrelated claims arising over a period of eleven years
against twenty-one defendants who were involved in some
fashion with his various criminal charges, convictions, and
parole. The pleading specifically identifies the following
individuals as Defendants as ordered: (1) Justin Hurst,
Plaintiff's private defense attorney; (2) Billy Morritz,
Plaintiff's private defense attorney; (3) Joe T. Tyler,
Plaintiff's public defender; and (4) Danny Rogers,
Plaintiff's public defender. (ECF No. 14).
Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hurst, Morritz,
and Tyler were “deputies of the Court and/or
Attorney's and/or under color of law failed to establish
reasonable liability or to investigate legal obligation in
light of Due process. . . . [I] have suffered the unlawful
actions of false arrest, use of force . . . prosecution . . .
without remedy . . . due process.” (ECF No. 14, p. 4).
In Claim Two, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Hurst,
Morritz, and Tyler were negligent and ineffective as his
counsel during his criminal proceedings. (Id. at p.
5). In Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Hurst,
Morritz, and Tyler are responsible for his “unlawful
detention, wrongful institution of legal process &
malicious prosecution and a wrongful use of judicial process
or negligence of due process.” (Id. at p. 6).
Plaintiff does not specifically name Defendant Rogers in any
of these claims. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages and asks he be awarded “custody/visitation . .
. of my children, should be granted an unmarked car, gov.
phone, and a loan of $3000.00 a month until case is ended. I
should be acquitted of any and all offenses, completely
exonerated . . . releasing me on own recognizance, retainment
of counsel . . . because I am the victim.”
(Id. at p. 7).
narrative portion of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
also mentions the following individuals who were initially
named as Defendants in his first Complaint, but does not
provide any information regarding their current addresses or
places of employment: Judge Duncan Culpepper, Phillip Harris,
Tim McBrayer, Sean Clark, Sheriff James Singleton, Judge
Randal Wright, Matthew Ford, Bo Morris, Officer Brown,
Sergeant Hughes, Evans, Simmons, and Traci Graham. Plaintiff
also seeks to add the following individuals as new
Defendants: Bubba Shewbirt, Catherine E. Lee, and Magistrate
Judge Barry A. Bryant. For efficiency's sake, the Court
will separately recount the allegations Plaintiff makes as to
each of these Defendants.
claims Defendant Judge Duncan Culpepper presided over
“the proceedings of conviction and sentence” in
Nevada County, Arkansas in 2010, in which the
“prosecution was not asserted by diligent means after a
third party confessed and indicated he acted alone. . . . [I]
was only given two choices by the judge to plea.” (ECF
No. 14, p. 8). Plaintiff also references sentences imposed
against him in 2009 and 2015 and claims these sentences were
invalid or incorrect. (Id. at pp. 8-9).
states Defendant Phillip Harris “was the prosecuting
attorney in 2010 [and] entered a prosecution against me in
the [state court] . . . without diligent prosecution. . . .
[I]n 2012 he entered a prosecution against me in [state
court] . . . without diligent prosecution.”
states Defendant Danny Rogers was his public defender in 2010
and “did not protect my inviolate criminal status,
record and citizenship . . . negligently allowed prosecution
and conviction to occur.” (Id.).
claims Defendant Tim McBrayer was an officer who, in 2009,
“unlawfully arrested me, by not showing warrant when
requested and then assaulted and imprisoned me against my
will by cuffs, transportation and jail. . . . [I]n 2014 he
unlawfully arrested me . . . did not provide warrant when
requested.” Plaintiff goes on to claim Defendant
McBrayer pepper sprayed him in 2014 and then arrested him
again in 2015 and threatened him with pepper spray. (ECF No.
14, p. 10).
alleges that, in 2009, Defendant Sean Clark “[came] to
my residence without civil notice . . . and harassed me and
my guest” during an arrest. (Id.).
claims that, in 2012, Defendant James Singleton
“arrived on the scene where his fellow officers had
harassed me while holding my son” and then directed
officers to strike Plaintiff and utilize a taser on him.
Plaintiff states Defendant Singleton “caused this
tasing act and his fellow deputy placed me into a choke
hold.” Plaintiff claims his son was also injured during
this incident. (ECF No. 14, p. 11).
claims Defendant Judge Randal Wright presided over his
criminal proceedings in 2012. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
Wright ignored his request to have the case dropped and
“deprived me of my privileges to family and home . . .
by ordering no contact order.” (ECF No. 14, p. 12).
Plaintiff goes on to claim that, in 2018, “[Defendant
Wright] wanted the case over with [and] said he would drop
the battery charge if I plead to the fleeing charge. He then
gave me a choice to plea. I did not sign the plea/waiver and
was convicted and sentenced without sufficient
states Defendant Matthew Ford was a prosecuting attorney who
“was present when I requested dismissal 2 times. He
participated in the discovery process and imposed a sentence
. . . made allegations . . . that do not appear by material
fact and prosecuted claims without diligent prosecution . . .
I was convicted and sentenced . . . did not prove any offense
had occurred.” (ECF No. 14, p. 13).
claims that, in 2018, Defendant Bo Morris walked up to him
“with his gun in his hand pointing said gun hollering
roll over . . . holstered his gun and followed Defendant
Officer Brown.” (ECF No. 14, pp. 13-14). Plaintiff says
Defendant Morris did not produce any warrant and
“handcuffed me to a fence walked away and threatened to
charge me with resisting . . . he left me cuffed to the fence
for about 30 mins . . . he provided me with a bottle of water
to drink.” (Id. at p. 14). Plaintiff goes on
to state Defendant Morris “did not shake my hand in
court, he left the courtroom before conviction &
sentence. He did not state claims concisely did not establish
jurisdiction . . . stated false claims . . . did not call
ambulance to the scene.” (Id.).
claims that, in 2018, Defendant Brown “grabbed me and
pulled me to my feet . . . did not introduce nor advise
arrest. He witnessed me being . . . cuffed to fence . . . he
trespassed property and did not prevent unlawful arrest and
false imprisonment.” (ECF No. 14, pp. 14-15). Plaintiff
also claims that, in June 2017, Defendant Brown
“verified me to be out of state for a job pass but when
a new officer was assigned to me and he left the parole
office a warrant was placed for my arrest and I was arrested
in Louisiana. I was fired from my job.” (Id.
at p. 15).
states Defendant Hughes “trespassed property. He
approached me with his gun drawn . . . witnessed Officer Bo
Morris make his false allegation and handcuff me to a
fence.” (ECF No. 14, p. 15). “Because of this
[failure to] prevent his fellow official from mistake I have
been convicted sentenced and incarcerated.”
claims Defendant Evans “witnessed me handcuffed to a
fence and me being transported. She did not provide warrant
and did not enforce arrest pursuant to warrant. Because of
this I was charged outside of warrant and prosecuted twice
for the same events. . . . She did not assure the protection
of my person nor of my freedom. And did not prevent
claims Defendant Simmons caused multiple warrants to issue
for Plaintiff's arrest “by construing and advising
me of different times to appear at parole [appointment]
rather than had been scheduled, did not provide documentation
for [parole revocation] . . . did not prevent arrest or false
arrest . . . did not prevent prosecution.” (ECF No. 14,
p. 15). Plaintiff goes on to claim he informed her he was
innocent and she “would ignore it especially from the
Administrative reaction which got me fired, arrested and
reinstated on parole.” (Id.).
identifies Defendant Traci Graham as a prosecuting attorney
who “prosecuted me . . . without sufficient evidence
she did not prevent unnecessary conviction & sentence and
did not challenge the fact that I did not enter nor request
to enter nolo contendere plea. Because of this I was
convicted and sentenced.” (ECF No. 14, p. 16).
also states he was denied “adequate medical, having
been subjected to incarceration I have been [scarred],
broken, hazed, and disciplined because of my medical
conditions. And my foot is still wounded has [healed] out of
place, my penis has deformed due to medical negligence, my
chest neck back head arm subsequently hurt.” (ECF No.
14, p. 18). He also claims he has been subjected to forced
labor, racial discrimination among inmates, housed with
alleged criminals, and subjected to living conditions which
are inhumane. (Id.). Plaintiff does not identify any
specific Defendants as being responsible for these claims.
also appears to add three new Defendants, Bubba Shewbirt,
Catherine Lee, and Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant. With
respect to Shewbirt and Lee, Plaintiff states, “I am
adding the callers of each known incident which is for the
arrest in 2009 as one, Bubba Shewbirt. And the arrest in 2012
as one Catherine E. Lee. . . . Shewbirt failed to prosecute
his claims . . . did not assure that law was appropriately
applied. Having failed to appear and participate.” (ECF
No. 14, p. 19). Plaintiff goes on to say Catherine Lee also
failed to “prosecute her claims diligently and did not
assure that law was appropriately applied. She has not
attempted to obtain nor maintain contact with me in light of
our children and has denied me . . . corresponding rights she
ignores me and does not include me in the children's
Judge Bryant, Plaintiff seeks to add him as a defendant
because he ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff states that Judge Bryant's
“denial or disagreement and/or outcome other than those
which are not in my interest and achievement will be
considered violate of the due process clause . . . for
ignoring legal doctrine in light of my right to counsel and
to peacefully assemble.” (ECF No. 14, p. 21).