Wright v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 dismissing 2 Complaint and Amended Complaint 12 filed by John Kirby Wright ; and denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot. Dismissal of this action constitutes a strike. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/16/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHN KIRBY WRIGHT
Case No. 2:13-cv-00078-KGB-JTK
RAY HOBBS, et al.
The Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 10). On August 12, 2013, plaintiff John Kirby
Wright mailed a “statement of my appeal” and a “statement of necessity” to this Court. The
Court construes these documents as objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations
(Dkt. No. 11). After a review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and the timely
objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the
Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety. Also pending is Mr. Wright’s motion
to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 9). Due to the nature of this Order, Mr. Wright’s motion to appoint
counsel is hereby denied as moot.
Mr. Wright, an Arkansas Department of Corrections (“ADC”) inmate filed this pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 setting forth a wide range of vague allegations of kidnapping,
conspiracy to commit murder, and suicide by hypnosis (Dkt. No. 2). On June 27, 2013, Judge
Kearney granted Mr. Wright’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, in that Order,
Judge Kearney found Mr. Wright’s complaint too vague and conclusory to determine whether it
was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Judge Kearney directed Mr. Wright to amend
his complaint (Dkt. No. 6).
Mr. Wright filed two responses to that Order by mailing
correspondence to Judge Kearney’s chambers (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8). In those responses, Mr. Wright
objects to filing an amended complaint, claiming that the State of Arkansas continues to ignore
his complaints of cruel and unusual punishment, sexual harassment by hypnosis, conspiracy, and
deliberate indifference (Dkt. No. 7). Mr. Wright alleges that unnamed individuals used hypnosis
to destroy his legal work. Mr. Wright includes notes made on Court orders, and miscellaneous
letters in which he alleges a 10 year conspiracy and deliberate indifference by hypnosis. Mr.
Wright also includes allegations of theft and conspiracy by several of his fellow inmates (Dkt.
Mr. Wright also mailed two letters to this Court instead of to Judge Kearney. For this
reason, Mr. Wright’s two letters were not considered by Judge Kearney in his Proposed Findings
and Recommendations. This correspondence includes a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form, a
statement of facts, statement of the claim, letters addressed to Judge Baker, and a letter to Linda
Rountree, whom Mr. Wright identifies as his mother. The Court construes these letters as Mr.
Wright’s amended complaint, which Judge Kearney directed him to file (Dkt. No. 12). Mr.
Wright’s § 1983 complaint form lists names without any further factual allegations and refers to
attached court and prisoner grievance documents. Mr. Wright’s statement of facts discusses his
efforts in getting § 1983 claim forms from the law library and the names of people involved in
the “incidences.” Mr. Wright’s statement of the claim names two people who he claims tie the
case together “over a long period of about twenty years” and that there has been “deliberate
indifference to all my complaints and this organized kidnapping to avoid prosecution.” In the
letters addressed to Judge Baker, Mr. Wright makes vague allegations of destroyed evidence and
legal documents, hypnosis, harassment, hate crimes, and conspiracy. He also complains of
running out of writing supplies. After considering carefully all of Mr. Wright’s correspondence,
the Court finds that, at this time, Mr. Wright still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
Mr. Wright also filed a statement of appeal and statement of necessity that the Court
construes as Mr. Wright’s objection to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Mr.
Wright in his statement of appeal states that he wants “to press charges. Explination [sic]:
deliberate indifference, conspiracy, ‘hate crimes’ and organized kidnapping.” In a civil case, the
notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry
of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed. R. App. P. 4. At this time, Mr. Wright cannot
appeal this case because judgment has not been entered. Mr. Wright in his statement of necessity
states that, “I want to file a complaint against this Court. I believe I’m being conspired against
by government and state employees both within the Arkansas Departments [sic] of Corrections
and the District Courts.” Mr. Wright renews his motion for an attorney and his motion to appeal
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Wright states that the “whole state of Arkansas has
been showing indifference.” Lastly, Mr. Wright states that he submitted a statement of facts,
statement of claim, and a statement of the case. As discussed above, even after considering these
documents, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Wright’s complaint and amended complaint against defendants are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment
dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
4. Mr. Wright’s motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot (Dkt. No. 9).
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2013.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?