Meadows v. Maples et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 6 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION as this Court's findings and denying 11 12 Motions to Amend/Correct. An in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 06/02/2014. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
TERESE MARIE MEADOWS
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 1:13-cv-00034 KGB-BD

JOHN MAPLES, JR., et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition submitted by Magistrate Judge
Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 6) and the objections filed by plaintiff Terese Marie Meadows (Dkt. No.
9). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this
case, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved
and adopted as this Court’s findings.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires courts to screen a complaint in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer of a governmental entity.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Ms. Meadows brings a private suit for damages under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

The

Recommended Disposition recommends that Ms. Meadows’s complaint which purports to allege
claims under RICO be dismissed without prejudice. The Court agrees with the Recommended
Disposition that Ms. Meadows has failed to allege a viable claim under RICO, and the Court
dismisses without prejudice her claims.
The Court also has reviewed Ms. Meadows’s motion to amend (Dkt. No. 10) and motions
to supplement the record (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12). It appears that Ms. Meadows seeks to supplement
her RICO claim and to raise multiple new and unrelated claims that were not asserted in her
previous filings. The motions are denied. Ms. Meadows’s proposed amendments do not salvage

her RICO claim. As to the new and unrelated claims Ms. Meadows wishes to assert, Ms.
Meadows cannot defeat the filing requirements of the PLRA by joining in one lawsuit a
multitude of unrelated and legally distinct claims involving different defendants and different
time periods.
For these reasons, Ms. Meadows’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Court
certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and not taken in
good faith.
SO ORDERED this the 2nd day of June, 2014.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2