Carter v. Duncan et al
ORDER finding that Carter may proceed with his constitutional and ADA claim against Boyd, and all other claims raised in the amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Boyd. The U.S. Marshal is d irected to serve the complaint, amended complaint, and this Order on him without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/31/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CARL RUSSELL CARTER, JR., ADC #159268
NO. 3:15CV00090 JLH/JTR
BRETT DUNCAN, Administrator,
Craighead County Jail, et al.
Carl Russell Carter, Jr., has filed an amended complaint adding new claims and defendants.
Document #10. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed
by prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8(a)(2) does not require a complaint to
contain detailed factual allegations, it does require a plaintiff to state the grounds of his entitlement
to relief, which requires more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
In the original complaint, Carter alleged that Jail Administrators Duncan and Hall violated
his constitutional rights and the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to provide
showering accommodations -- such as handrails, shower chairs, and rubber mats -- for him and other
physically disabled prisoners. Document #1.
In the amended complaint, Carter alleges that Sheriff Boyd also failed to fulfill his obligation
to make the jail showers accessible to physically disabled prisoners. Document #2. The Court
concludes, for screening purposes only, that Carter has pled a plausible constitutional and ADA
claim against Boyd. Thus, he will be served.
Carter also contends that deputies Mills, Ford, Callaway, Foster, Richardson, Andrews, and
French offered him a chance to shower even though they knew that the jail did not have the
accommodations he needed. Id. Carter has not pled any facts suggesting that any of the deputies
had the authority to install handrails, purchase shower chairs and rubber mats, or otherwise make
necessary accommodations to the jail showers. Thus, Carter has not pled a viable constitutional or
ADA claim against any of the newly named deputies.
Finally, Carter’s amended complaint also contains allegations that two unnamed nurses failed
to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care for infections on his feet. Id. Joinder
of that factually and legally unrelated claim against new defendants is improper. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20(a)(2) (explaining that multiple defendants may be joined in one lawsuit only if the claims
against them arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and
occurrences” and involve a “question of law or fact” that is “common to all defendants”); Bailey v.
Doe; Case No. 11-2410, 2011 WL 5061542 (8th Cir. Oct. 26, 2011) (unpublished opinion) (holding
that prisoners cannot defeat the filing fee requirements in § 1915 by joining unrelated and legally
distinct claims in one lawsuit). If Carter wishes to purse a claim about the allegedly inadequate care
he received for his feet, he must do so in a new and separately filed § 1983 action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Carter may proceed with his constitutional and ADA claim against Boyd, and all
other claims raised in the amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Boyd. The U.S. Marshal is directed
to serve the complaint, amended complaint, and this Order on him without prepayment of fees and
costs or security therefor.
It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal
from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2015.
J. LEON HOLMES
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?