Walker v. Boyd et al

Filing 4

ORDER directing Walker to submit an amended complaint with the information specified in this order, no later than 30 days after the entry date of this order. Walker's failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his complaint. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/22/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
ROBERT LANCE WALKER
v.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 3:16CV00345 JLH

MARTY BOYD, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Lance Walker, an inmate at the Poinsett County Detention Center, filed a
pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on December 12, 2016. Document #2. The Court
granted Walker’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on December 14, 2016. Document #3.
I. Screening
Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a for relief; or that seek
money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages should be dismissed before the
defendants are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Walker alleges that prior to his current incarceration in Poinsett County, he was arrested and
incarcerated for 15 days in Craighead County for terroristic threatening, assault on a family member,
and theft of property. He also claims he was slandered by having his name released on mobile patrol
and in the news. Walker alleges the charges against him were later dropped. Walker sues
defendants Craighead County Sheriff Marty Boyd, Judge Keith Blackman, and prosecuting attorney
Scott Ellington in their official but not personal capacities. He seeks reimbursement for the amount
he spent on bail and payment for the 15 days he spent in jail. However, Walker does not describe

any additional facts concerning his arrest and incarceration or the release of his name, what actions
each defendant took in connection with these events, or how his constitutional rights were violated.
The Court must have complete information regarding the allegations against each defendant
in order to complete § 1915A screening. Therefore, Walker must file a legible amended complaint
within thirty days from the date of this Order explaining how each defendant violated his
constitutional rights, how he was personally harmed by each alleged constitutional violation, and
why he seeks relief against the defendants in their official capacities. Walker is cautioned that an
amended complaint renders his original complaint without legal effect. Only claims properly set out
in the amended complaint will be allowed to proceed. Walker’s failure to timely file an amended
complaint will result in the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
II. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Walker is directed to submit an amended complaint,
with the information specified in this order, no later than 30 days after the entry date of this order.
Walker’s failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his complaint.
DATED this 22nd day of December, 2016.

__________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2