United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.”
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.
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. ...