Smith v. Desoto County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER conditionally granting with caveats 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court directs the Clerk not to file another complaint by Smith without prior Court approval if the case is assigned at random to Judge Marshall. The complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/18/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
FREDERICK SMITH

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:16-cv-163-DPM

DESOTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT;
LAKE VILLAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; and STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is conditionally granted

with caveats. The Court doesn't understand the beginning of his papers; and
his financial picture looks incomplete. It is clear, though, that Smith can't pay
the whole filing fee up-front.
2.

The Court must screen his complaint before ordering service.

28U.S.C.§1915(e)(2). Smith says that the defendants conspired against him
to destroy his good name, falsely arrested him, and entered his name into the
NCIC database without cause. Ng 3-1. The allegations in this complaint are
similar to the ones in 3:13-cv-50-JLH. He names some different folks in this
case -the Lake Village Police Department and the State of Mississippi - but
most of the material facts are the same. Compare No. 3-13-cv-50-JLH, Ng 2, with
3:16-cv-163-DPM, Ng 3. Smith's previous case was dismissed with prejudice.

No. 3:13-cv-50-JLH NQ 50. So that judgment may well bar this new case. But
there's no need to undertake the preclusion analysis because it's clear these
claims are untimely.
Smith claims violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985. The events alleged
happened in 2009-some seven years ago. The date is clear from Smith's
complaint in No. 3:13-cv-50-JLH. The Court may consider that related public
record on screening under§ 1915(e)(2), which is the functional equivalent of
a motion that tests a pleading. Porous Media Corporation v. Pall Corporation, 186
F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th
Cir. 1997). The statute of limitations on these claims is three years. Morton v.

City of Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180, 182 (8th Cir. 1991); ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-56105. Smith's new complaint will therefore be dismissed with prejudice as time
barred.
3. This is the third case Smith has filed about the arrest/NCIC-database
issues, and the tenth one he has filed in the last three years or so about related
issues. See the chart attached to the Court's recent Order in Smith's last case.
No. 3-16-cv-89-DPM NQ 3 at 6. Smith has pursued all these cases without

paying a filing fee. The Court warned Smith two months ago that he must

-2-

stop filing cases on issues that have already been decided or clearly lack
merit. No. 3-16-cv-89-DPM at NQ 3 at 5. The Court therefore directs the Clerk
not to file another complaint by Smith without prior Court approval if the
case is assigned at random to me.

* *

*

Motion, NQ 1, granted; the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered.

-3-