Thomas v. Wilson et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting as modified Motions 6 and 22 . Southwestern Bell, AT&T, Albrecht, and Seawel are dismissed without prejudice. The Court grants Thomas leave to amend, and to re-plead his claims against them, as Thomas plans to do after Deputy Wilson answers. Amended complaint due no later than 9/21/2018. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/30/2018. (jak)

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

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 2:18-cv-67-DPM

COREY WILSON, Individually and in
his Official Capacity as a Police Officer
for Lee County, Arkansas; AT&T CORP.;
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF ARKANSAS; MATTHEW
ALBRECHT; RICK SEAWEL; and
JOHN DOES, 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Eddie Thomas used to work for AT&T. He says that, after he left
the company, it allowed him to dig up abandoned telephone wire for
salvage. In October 2013, an AT&T supervisor found him digging up
wire and called the police. Over Thomas' s objections, and allegedly
because of his race, he was arrested.

The company took back the

salvaged wire. Thomas faced prosecution for almost four years, until
May 2017, when the state dropped all charges. He has now sued his
arresting officer, AT&T, an AT&T subsidiary, and several AT&T
employees for civil rights violations, abuse of process, and malicious
prosecution.

The AT&T Defendants have moved to dismiss.

County Deputy Sheriff Wilson hasn't yet appeared.

Lee

Thomas hasn't stated a claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act
or§ 1983 against the AT&T Defendants. They were neither government
actors nor private parties acting under color of state law. Adams ex rel.
Harris v. Boy Scouts of America-Chickasaw Council, 271 F.3d 769, 777-78

(8th Cir. 2001). That doesn't close the case, though. Was AT&T "a
willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents which ...
deprived [Thomas] of a constitutional right[?]" Murray v. Wal-Mart,
Inc., 874 F.2d 555, 558-59 (8th Cir. 1989). Not on the pleaded facts.

Thomas' s complaint, while admirably concise, doesn't allege a
sufficient link between AT&T and Deputy Wilson or the Lee County
prosecutor. The fact that Thomas was arrested and prosecuted doesn't,
standing alone, "raise an inference that an arrangement existed[.]"
West-Anderson v. Missouri Gaming Company, 557 F. App'x 620, 623

(8th Cir. 2014). The County actors may have found probable cause
through their own investigation, for example.

More is needed to

suggest otherwise. The Court declines to reach the tangled limitations
question because Thomas hasn't stated a claim.
Thomas hasn't pleaded sufficient facts to support his claims for
abuse of process or malicious prosecution, either. Liberally construed,
Thomas's complaint alleges that AT&T called the police, had him
arrested, and urged prosecution to reclaim its copper wire. This is
strong medicine. But the law requires details, not cursory links or
conclusions, as Thomas acknowledges by reserving his right to amend.
-2-

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Some specific
facts, such as alleged communications, are needed to show that AT&T
initiated or continued frivolous charges against Thomas. McMullen v.
McHughes Law Firm, 2015 Ark. 15, at 15, 454 S.W.3d 200, 210 (2015).

*
*
*
Motions, NQ 6 & NQ 22, granted as modified. Southwestern Bell,
AT&T, Albrecht, and Seawel are dismissed without prejudice. The
Court grants Thomas leave to amend, and to re-plead his claims against
them, as Thomas plans to do after Deputy Wilson answers. Amended
complaint due no later than 21 September 2018.
So Ordered.

ft.

D.P. Marshall
United States District Judge

-3-