Hart v. Beasley et al

Filing 9

ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare a Summons for Defendant Sharon Beasley, & directing the U.S. Marshal to serve copies of the 2 Complaint & 7 Amended Complaint upon Defendant Beasley through the Crittenden County Detention Sheriff's Depar tment, without prepayment of fees & costs or security therefor. The Clerk is also directed to send a copy of this Order to the Warden/Director of the Crittenden County Detention Facility. Service is not appropriate for Defendants Miller, Williams, H. Brown, Ingram, T. Brown, Walker, Jefferson & Ooshie. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 2/17/2010. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J O N E S B O R O DIVISION J E R R Y HART V. C A S E NO. 3:10CV00015 JLH-BD DEFENDANTS P L A IN T IF F

S H A R O N BEASLEY, et al.

ORDER P la in tif f , an inmate housed at the Crittenden County Detention Facility ("CCDF"), f ile d the instant law suit pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Docket entries #1 a n d #3). Because Plaintiff's original Complaint was deficient, Plaintiff was ordered to f ile an Amended Complaint specifically explaining his constitutional claims. (#3) Plaintiff now has filed an Amended Complaint. (#7) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that on July 23, 2009, he witnessed an in c id e n t between Defendant Sharon Beasley and another inmate at the CCDF. Plaintiff a lle g e s that he made a comment about Defendant Beasley following the incident and that, a s a result of the comment, Defendant Beasley placed Plaintiff in lockdown for seventytw o hours without a disciplinary hearing. While most of the allegations made against Defendant Beasley in this case are d u p lic a tiv e of claims previously raised by Plaintiff in Hart v. Beasley, et al.,

3:09CV00022 WRW,1 this case also includes a new allegation that Plaintiff was not p ro v id e d a disciplinary hearing prior to his assignment to seventy-two hours in lockdown. A pre-trial detainee may be subjected to disciplinary segregation only if he is p ro v id e d a due process hearing to determine whether a rule violation has occurred. Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992). For screening purposes, Plaintiff h a s stated a due process claim, and service for Defendant Beasley is appropriate at this tim e . See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Service is not appropriate for Defendants Miller, W illia m s , H. Brown, Ingram, T. Brown, Walker, Jefferson, and Ooshie. T h e Clerk of Court is directed to prepare a summons for Defendant Beasley, and th e United States Marshal is directed to serve copies of the Complaint and the Amended C o m p la in t with any attachments (docket entries #2 and #7), and a summons for this D e f e n d a n t through the Crittenden County Detention Sheriff's Department, 350 AFCO R o a d , West Memphis, Arkansas 72301, without prepayment of fees and costs or security th e re f o r. T h e Clerk of the Court also is directed to send a copy of this Order to the W a rd e n /D ire c to r of the Crittenden County Detention Facility, 350 AFCO Road, West M e m p h is , Arkansas 72301.

Plaintiff also raised similar claims in Hart v. Beasley, et al., 3:09cv157 WRW. In that case, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss his case. (#11) 2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2010.

___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3