Hayes v. Harrison

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge

         This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Ron Wesley 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 provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under the PLRA, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1). On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 9). The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a court-approved section 1983 form to use for filing the amended complaint and stated that Plaintiff's amended complaint should include:

short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant.

(Id.) (internal citation omitted).

         Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on October 1, 2019. (ECF No. 12). The amended complaint states three claims and names the following Defendants: (1) Chief Robert H. Harrison, Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department; (2) Connie Mitchell, Prosecutor; (3) Corporal Webb; (4) Officer Burns; (5) Warden Lieutenant Miller; (6) Officer Jones; and (7) Nurse King. (ECF No. 12).

         Plaintiff's first claim is for “excessive force, denial of medical care.” He lists Corporal Webb, Officer Burns, Officer Jones, Warden Lt. Miller, and Nurse King as Defendants, naming each in both their official and personal capacities. Plaintiff's only factual allegations regarding this claim are limited to: “My [e]lbows and [k]nees, my back with there [k]nee's chokeing me by my neck I have a lots of injur[ies].” When asked to describe a custom or policy that caused the violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff states “Denial of medical Cruel and unus[ual] punishment.” (ECF No. 12).

         Plaintiff's second claim is for “false imprisonment.” Plaintiff lists Chief of Police Robert H. Harrison and Prosecutor Connie Mitchell as Defendants. Plaintiff states the Defendants Harrison and Mitchell “have came together on false criminal.” Plaintiff also mentions denial of medical care, stating “a lots of injur[i]es they refuse to help take care of also charging me falsely by joining prosecutor Connie Mitchell and Chief Harrison.” When asked to describe a custom or policy that caused the violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff states “refusing me medical after using excessive force.” (ECF No. 12).

         Plaintiff's amended complaint also appears to attempt to state a third claim. Plaintiff does not state what type of claim he is bringing, or the name of any Defendant involved. When asked to “[d]escribe the acts or omissions of Defendants that form the basis for Claim #3 and any harm caused by it, ” Plaintiff states: “I was asking for medical help when these officers of Miller County refuse to help they sent a woman nurse name Luny she was helping me then one of the Defendants Nurse King came in to work. He denied me calling me a cra[c]k head its been so much I don't what to do.” When asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states “denial medical care also refuse to feed that morning after beat me.”

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Under 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. § 1915A(b).

         A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint also 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. ...