Franklin v. Walker et al
ORDER, re 8 Amended Complaint filed by Cleophus Franklin, reflecting he has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine whether he can state a constitutional claim for relief. Mr. Franklin is given an additional 30 days to iden tify those responsible for his detention without due process. He must set out facts supporting a claim that there is an unconstitutional county policy. If Plaintiff seeks money damages, he must sue Defendants in their individual capacities. Failure to comply with this Order can result in a dismissal of this lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 1/5/2012. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 3:11CV00248 DPM/BD
Cleophus Franklin, an inmate housed at the Mississippi County Detention Center
(“Detention Center”), filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Mr.
Franklin’s original complaint was deficient, he was ordered to submit an amended
complaint. Mr. Franklin has now complied with that order.
In his amended complaint, Mr. Franklin explains that he was arrested on August
26, 2011, for breaking and entering, as well as for theft of property. He claims that he has
been held in the Detention Center since that date and has not been arraigned on his
criminal charges. Mr. Franklin also complains that he has not seen the arrest report
describing the crimes for which he has been charged; nor has he been appointed a lawyer
to represent him in his criminal proceeding. Mr. Franklin requests money damages for
each day that he has been held in the Detention Center.
Mr. Franklin, again, has not provided the Court with sufficient information to
determine whether he can state a constitutional claim for relief. Mr. Franklin has not
identified the individuals who have prevented him from being seen by a state court judge.
Mr. Franklin names the prosecuting attorney as a Defendant. As the Court previously
explained to Mr. Franklin, prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct
in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case. Patterson v. Von Riesen,
999 F.2d 1235, 1237 (8th Cir. 1993).
In addition, in his original complaint, Mr. Franklin states that he names the
Defendants in their official capacities. In order to state a claim against county officials in
their official capacity, Mr. Franklin must allege that he was injured by an unconstitutional
county policy or practice. Only defendants who are sued in their individual capacities can
be held liable for money damages. Here, Mr. Franklin has not sued the Defendants in
their individual capacities, and he has alleged no facts that would support a claim that
there is a county policy or practice of failing to take defendants to court.
Accordingly, Mr. Franklin has an additional thirty days to identify those
responsible for his detention without due process. He must set out facts supporting a
claim that there is an unconstitutional county policy. If he seeks money damages, he must
sue Defendants in their individual capacities.
Failure to comply with this order can result in a dismissal of this lawsuit.
DATED this 5th day of January, 2012.
UNITED 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?