Brooks v. Crittenden County, Arkansas et al

Filing 27

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as it does not appear that Plaintiff has stated a claim for the violation of his federal constitutional rights. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 5/19/06. (jct)

Download PDF
Brooks v. Crittenden County, Arkansas et al Doc. 27 Case 3:06-cv-00015-GTE Document 27 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION SAMUEL McKINLEY BROOKS V. 3:06CV00015 GTE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS et al. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Mr. Brooks has responded to the Court's Order requiring him to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Court's Order of May 11, 2006, Docket No. 24). Mr. Brooks' response adds nothing to his previous filings. More importantly, Mr. Brooks has failed to state a claim for which this Court may award any relief. Accordingly, his Amended Complaint will be dismissed. DISCUSSION It appears that Plaintiff's primary complaint is that Arkansas refuses to give him his "clemency papers of honor." He also claims that he has been harassed in some unspecified manner by Kyle Bruce, Jennifer Miller, Leroy Brownlee, Brian Holt, and Mrs. Carol V. Bohanon. Plaintiff asserts the following as cause for permitting this case to proceed: "I feel the only thing can solve this matter is we all come to court an [sic] let the Judge decide. By me being heard by many people, a U.S. Army Bronze Medal should say enough. So let's just have a trial, May 30, 2006 at 1:00 o'clock." (Show Cause Response, Docket No. 26). Plaintiff's response indicates that he believes that this Court is able to resolve any and all disputes and to restore his honor. However, that is not the case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal court may only grant relief when some specific law within the Court's subject matter jurisdiction has been violated. Plaintiff has not referenced and the Court is unaware of any Case 3:06-cv-00015-GTE Document 27 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 2 of 2 specific federal law that was arguably violated by the conduct alleged. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim. "Section 1983 relief is predicated on the denial of a right or interest protected by the Constitution." Dover Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995)(internal quotation and citation omitted). Accepting the facts asserted as true, it does not appear that Plaintiff has stated a claim for the violation of his federal constitutional rights. It appears that Plaintiff is on a quest to restore his honor and/or to have his service to the country, which is memorialized in a bronze medal awarded to him, recognized by Arkansas, Crittenden County, and/or various state officials. Federal court is not the appropriate forum for this task. CONCLUSION In sum, Plaintiff has failed to address the concerns noted by the Court in its Order to Show Cause. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, on the Court's own motion, that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in this matter be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. It is so ordered this 19th day of May, 2006. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele_______ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?