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)

Download PDF
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-

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?