Brooks v. Rorex et al
ORDER directing Brooks to file an Amended Complaint on or before 5/29/2017 containing the information specified in this Order. If Brooks does not timely and properly do so, this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5 (c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 4/28/2017. (jak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JEREMIE M. BROOKS,
STEVE ROREX, Jail Administrator,
Poinsett County Detention Center, et al.
Plaintiff, Jeremie M. Brooks ("Brooks"), is a pretrial detainee at the Poinsett
County Detention Center ("PCDC"). He has filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint alleging
that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 2. Before Brooks may
proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.1
Brooks alleges that Defendants Jail Administrator Rorex ("Rorex"), Captain
Hitts ("Hitts"), Assistant Jail Administrator Muse ("Muse"), and former Sheriff Mills
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court
must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally
frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When
making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the
complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
("Mills") subjected him, and other PCDC detainees, to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement by failing to: (1) remove live wires; (2) clear clogged drains and air
vents; (3) change rusted pad locks; (4) install T.B. lights; (5) provide sufficient hot
water; (6) clean moldy showers; and (7) fix a malfunctioning heater. Doc. 2. The
Court needs further information about these allegations to complete § 1915A
Thus, Brooks must file an Amended Compliant clarifying: (1) how long he
personally endured each alleged constitutional violation;2 (2) how he was personally
harmed by each alleged constitutional violation; (3) whether he was given cleaning
supplies; (4) whether Mills was the Sheriff while Brooks was in the PCDC, and if so,
how Mills personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation; and (5) how
Rorex, Hitts, and Muse each personally participated in the alleged constitutional
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Brooks must file, on or before May 29, 2017, an Amended Complaint
containing the specified information.
If Brooks does not timely and properly do so, this case will be dismissed,
Brooks does not have standing to bring § 1983 claims for constitutional violations suffered
by other PCDC detainees. See Sabers v. Delano, 100 F.3d 82, 83 (8th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. State
of Mo., 142 F.3d 1087, 1088-91 (8th Cir. 1998).
without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Dated this 28th day of April, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?