Jefferson v. Rice et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; directing monthly payments be made until the $350 filing fee has been paid; dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith; and finding that this dismissal counts as a "strike". Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 09/27/2016. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
TONY JEFFERSON
VS.

PLAINTIFFS
4:16-CV-00649-BRW

MATT RICE, Faulkner County Sheriff, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed his Complaint pro se
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He also submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.2 Based on the documentation provided Plaintiff, the request to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED. However, for the reasons set out below, the case is
DISMISSED.
I.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Prisoners who are allowed to file civil actions in forma pauperis still must pay a $350.00

filing fee.1 If a prisoner cannot afford to pay the filing fee in a lump sum, money is withdrawn
from his prison trust fund accounts in monthly installments.2
Based on Plaintiff’s calculation sheet, he is able to make an initial payment of $8.23, and
is directed to do so. Additionally, Plaintiff’s present custodian is directed to collect, and send to
the Clerk of the Court, monthly installments equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income
credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00,

1

Doc. No. 2.

2

Doc. No. 1.

1

28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2).
1

until the $350 filing fee is fully paid.3 All payments should be clearly identified by the name and
number assigned to this case.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Arkansas Department of
Correction Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office, P.O. Box 8908, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611;
the Arkansas Department of Correction Compliance Division, P.O. Box 20550, Pine Bluff,
Arkansas 71612; and the North Central Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, 10 Prison
Circle, Calico Rock, AR 72519.
II.

SCREENING
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints

seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.4 In these types of cases, a
court must summarily dismiss all claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
liability.5
Plaintiff’s complaint reads:
The public trial judge acted in concert and conspiracy along with the trial judge and
even my own counsel, and all other authorities with failing to follow procedures
which landed me inside the walls of this prison and even held me two extra days in
the county jail after the judge released me. It is clearly established that procedures
are to be followed in acknowledging my constitutional rights. These actions and
inaction are more than just mere fraud, it’s a violation of the law.6
The named Defendants are Matt Rice (the Faulkner County Sheriff), Courtny Cato (the
Faulkner County Prosecutor), and John Randle (the Faulkner County Jail Administrator). None

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2).

4

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

5

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

6

Doc. No. 2.
2

of Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for which relief can be granted. In fact, his complaint fails
to allege that the jail administrator and sheriff did anything to violate his constitution rights.
Additionally, his claims either seek monetary relief from parties immune from liability7 or are
Heck-barred.8
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. However, this case is DISMISSED, with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal of this
dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith. Additionally, this dismissal
counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Judges performing judicial functions
enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 liability.”); Patterson v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d 1235, 1238-39
(8th Cir. 1993) (holding that “parole board members are absolutely immune from suit when
considering and deciding parole questions”); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976) (holding
that “a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for damages when he acts within the
scope of his prosecutorial duties”).
8

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claim for damages that necessarily implies
invalidity of conviction or sentence is not cognizable under § 1983 until conviction or sentence has
been invalidated).
3