Hill v. Greene County et al
ORDER allowing Mr. Hill to file, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, a second amended complaint. If Mr. Hill fails to file a second amended complaint, the Court will screen his amended complaint, which is likely to result in the dismissal of some or all of his claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 10/01/2021. (llg)(Docket entry modified on 10/1/2021 to correct signature.)(cmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
GREENE COUNTY and
GREENE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
Plaintiff Parris Hill, a pre-trial detainee at the Greene County Detention
Center (Detention Center), filed this civil rights lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Doc. 2.1 Mr. Hill has now paid the statutory filing fee. Doc. 4. However, for
the reasons explained below, the Court cannot complete the required screening of
his recently filed amended complaint. Doc. 6.
In his original complaint, Mr. Hill complains generally about the conditions
of his confinement at the Detention Center. However, Mr. Hill only named Greene
County and the Detention Center as Defendants. In its September 15, 2021 Order,
the Court explained that, based on the allegations contained in his complaint, Mr.
Hill could not proceed on his claims against either Greene County or the Greene
Although Mr. Hill originally filed this case as a multi-plaintiff case, pursuant to Court
policy, this lawsuit was separated into three separate cases. The Court has allowed each Plaintiff
(Parris Hill, Clay Jackson, and Eric Gallwin) to pursue their claims in their own lawsuits.
County Detention Center. Doc. 5. Accordingly, the Court gave Mr. Hill 30 days to
file an amended complaint and directed him to: (1) specifically identify those
individuals’ responsible for his alleged unconstitutional conditions;2 and (2) state
what injury he suffered as a result of each of those Defendant’s conduct.
On September 6, 2021, Mr. Hill filed an amended complaint. Doc. 6. In that
pleading, Mr. Hill asserts a variety of legally and factually unrelated claims against
multiple individuals regarding events that allegedly occurred during his
incarceration at the Detention Center, including claims for: (1) excessive force; (2)
violation of his First Amendment rights; (3) violation of his procedural due process
rights; (2) failure to provide adequate nutrition; (3) failure to provide medication;
(4) unsanitary conditions of his confinement; (5) racial discrimination; (6) denial of
access to the courts; (7) possible exposure to COVID-19; (8) denial of visitation; and
(9) denial of recreation. He references 16 individuals in his amended complaint:
Chad Danel; Falica Rowland; Morgan Roberson; Mason Dillon; Brent Cox; Justin
Kayob; Cody Kelly; Alex Maury; Robert Case; Shanchaze Cheyanne; Charles Moss;
Macy Caldwell; Alicia Hauble; Glen James; CEO Perkins; and Steve Franks.
In a section 1983 action, a prisoner “must plead that each Government-official defendant,
through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 676 (2009).
Given the complex and confusing nature of Mr. Hill’s unrelated claims
asserted in the amended complaint, the Court cannot complete the screening process
mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.3
Mr. Hill may not pursue unrelated claims in one lawsuit. Similarly, multiple
defendants may be joined in one lawsuit only if the claims against them: (1) arise
“out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”;
and (2) involve “any question of law or fact common to all defendants.” FED. R. CIV.
P. 20(a)(2); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (providing that a court may sua sponte “add
or drop” an improperly joined party or “sever” any claim); Stephens v. Does, 777 F.
App’x 176, 177 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal without prejudice of several
The unrelated nature of Mr. Hill’s claims would make it very difficult for the
parties to complete discovery, file appropriate motions, or present this case to a jury
in a coherent manner.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints,
and to dismiss any 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(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept
the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider 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).
A prisoner cannot attempt to defeat the filing fee requirements in § 1915 by joining
unrelated and legally distinct claims in one lawsuit. See Bailey v. Doe, 434 F. App’x 573, 573 n.1
(8th Cir. 2011) (affirming severance of a prisoner’s complaint into three separate actions and
obligating him to pay three separate filing fees).
To allow Mr. Hill to correct these deficiencies, the Court will provide Mr. Hill
30 days to file a second amended complaint. If Mr. Hill files a second amended
complaint, it will supersede or replace the current amended complaint. See In re
Atlas Lines, Inc. 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (an amended complaint
supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal
effect). Thus, he should make sure that his second amended complaint, if filed,
includes all allegations relevant to any claim he wants to pursue in this lawsuit.
Finally, all that Mr. Hill needs to include in his second amended complaint is
a “short and plain statement” showing that he is entitled to relief, with allegations
that are “simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1) & (d). At this stage,
there is no need to identify witnesses or evidence that he may rely on later to prove
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Mr. Hill will be allowed to file, within 30 days of the entry of this Order,
a second amended complaint. In the second amended complaint, Mr. Hill must: (1)
include only his factually and legally related claims;5 (2) name only the Defendants
involved in those claims; (3) clarify how each Defendant personally participated in
For instance, Mr. Hill may bring his claim that the unsanitary conditions of his
confinement violate the Constitution in this lawsuit, and then pursue his factually and legally
distinct claim regarding racial discrimination in a separate lawsuit.
those claims; and (4) explain what injury he suffered as a result of each Defendant’s
If Mr. Hill fails to file a second amended complaint, the Court will
screen his amended complaint, which is likely to result in the dismissal of some or
all of his claims.6
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2021.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
If Mr. Hill refuses to choose a claim, then the Court may choose one for him and dismiss
all unrelated claims.
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?