Pratcher v. Mississippi County Detention Center et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing Pratcher's claims against the Mississippi County Detention Center with prejudice. Practcher's claims against Stankewicz, Whitfield, and Stepanuk in their official capacities are actually claims against Mississippi County. H is official capacity claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Stankewicz, Stepanuk, and Whitfield. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the summons, complaint, and this Order on them without prepayment o f fees and costs or security. If any of the defendants are no longer county employees, the individual responding to service must file the unserved defendant's last known private mailing address under seal. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/11/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
MARQUIS PRATCHER
ADC #149663
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:15-cv-53 DPM-JTR

MISSISSIPPI COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER; CHRIS STANKEWICZ, Nurse,
Mississippi County Detention Center;
LUTHER WHITFIELD, Lieutenant,
Mississippi County Detention Center; and
STEP ANUK, Doctor, Mississippi County
Detention Center

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. Pratcher has filed this prose§ 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his constitutional rights. Ng 2. The Court must screen Pratcher' s
complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2. Pratcher' s claims against the Mississippi County Detention Center
are dismissed with prejudice because jails are not proper defendants in a§
1983 action. Owens v. Scott County fail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003).
3. Pratcher' s claims againstStankewicz, Whitfield, and Stepanuk in their
official capacities are actually claims against Mississippi County. Parrish v.

Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2010). Pratcher does not allege that his
constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a Mississippi County policy,

practice, or custom. Jenkins v. County ofHennepin, Minnesota, 557 F.3d 628,632
(8th Cir. 2009). His official capacity claims are therefore dismissed without
prejudice.
4. Pratcher has pleaded a plausible § 1983 inadequate medical care
claim and state law medical malpractice claim against Stankewicz and
Stepanuk, in their individual capacities, for allegedly failing to properly treat
his high blood pressure. Pratcher has also pleaded a plausible § 1983 claim
that Whitfield, in his individual capacity, failed to take corrective action after
learning about the improper medical care Pratcher was receiving.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Stankewicz, Stepanuk,
and Whitfield. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the summons, complaint,
and this Order on them without prepayment of fees and costs or security. If
any of the defendants are no longer county employees, the individual
responding to service must file the unserved defendant's last known private
mailing address under seal.
5. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would
not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

-2-

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall J/.
United States District Judge

-3-