Rayburn v. Burl

Filing 9

ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare a summons for Corporal Larry and Lieutenant Heath. The Court directs the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons, a copy of Rayburn's complaint as amended, 2 and 8 , and this Order on each of them through the AD C Compliance Office. If either Larry or Heath is no longer an ADC employee, then the ADC Compliance Office must file with the Court the unserved defendant's last known private mailing address under seal. The Court dismisses Rayburn's claims against Warden Burl without prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/10/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION

JESSE JAMES RAYBURN
ADC #153338

PLAINTIFF

No. 2:14-cv-7-DPM-JTR

v.

BURL, Warden, East Arkansas Regional
Unit, ADC; LARRY, Corporal, East Arkansas
Regional Unit, ADC; and HEATH, Lieutenant,
East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1.

Rayburn has filed this prose§ 1983 action alleging that Burl, Larry,

and Heath violated his constitutional rights. NQ 2 & 8. The Court must screen
his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2.

Rayburn has stated a plausible claim against Corporal Larry and

Lieutenant Heath. Rayburn says that they subjected him to inhumane
conditions of confinement when they forced him to share a cell with an
inmate who was quarantined for having scabies. The Court directs the Clerk
to prepare a summons for Corporal Larry and Lieutenant Heath. The Court
directs the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons, a copy of Rayburn's complaint
as amended, NQ 2 & 8, and this Order on each of them through the ADC
Compliance Office without prepayment of fees and costs or security. If either

Larry or Heath is no longer an ADC employee, then the ADC Compliance
Office must file the unserved defendant's last known private mailing address
under seal.
3.

Rayburn has not pleaded any facts suggesting that Burl personally

participated in the alleged constitutional violation. Rayburn seeks to hold
Burl vicariously liable for the actions of his subordinates, which is not a
permissible basis for recovery in a§ 1983 action. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
676 (2009); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997). The Court
therefore dismisses Rayburn's claim against Warden Burl without prejudice.
4.

The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order

would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.
(/

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-