Hart v. Beasley et al
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
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2010.
___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE 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?