Honeycutt v. Womack et al
ORDER directing service for Defendant Brandon Womack. The Clerk shall prepare summons for the defendant and the United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the 2 Complaint and summons on defendant Womack without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Defendants McCann, Boyd, Richardson, and Rolland are dismissed from Honeycutt's complaint, without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/10/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
STEVEN M. HONEYCUTT,
CASE NO. 3:13CV00188 BSM
BRANDON WOMACK, Deputy Sheriff,
Craighead County; et al.
By order dated October 1, 2013, plaintiff Steven M. Honeycutt was granted leave to
proceed without prepayment of fees. [Doc. No. 3]. Finding Honeycutt’s complaint failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against all defendants, except defendant
Brandon Womack, Honeycutt was given thirty days to amend his complaint. Honeycutt,
however, has failed to amend his complaint.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts to screen prisoner
complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). A complaint, or portion thereof, must be dismissed if the prisoner has raised
claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is
appearing pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See
Martin v. Sargent, 780 F .2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).
An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The factual allegations must be weighted in favor of
Plaintiff. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “In other words, the § 1915(d)
frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been
asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed
Honeycutt alleges excessive force against defendant Brandon Womack, but fails to
make allegations against the other four named defendants. [Doc. No. 2]. In that Honeycutt
failed to amend his complaint as ordered, defendants McCann, Boyd, Richardson, and
Rolland are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Service is appropriate only with respect to
Honeycutt’s allegations against defendant Womack.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Service is appropriate for defendant Brandon Womack. The Clerk shall
prepare summons for the defendant and the United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the
complaint [Doc. No. 2] and summons on defendant Womack without prepayment of fees and
costs or security therefore.
Defendants McCann, Boyd, Richardson, and Rolland are dismissed from
Honeycutt’s complaint, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?