Reed v. Faulkner County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting 32 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Reed's claims against Mueller, Page, Andrews, Birdsong, Dane, and Crisafulli are dismissed without prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to prepare summonses for Ryals, Rice, and Harper, and the U.S. Marshal must serve the amended complaints, and supplement, No. 8 , 9 , & 21 , a summons, and this Order on each without prepayment of fees and costs or security. Reed's due process claims are dismissed without prejudice. Reed� 39;s claim regarding appointed counsel and his claims regarding access to the courts are dismissed without prejudice. Reed's requests for freedom and for legal materials from the detention center are denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/13/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
SIMON ERIC REED

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:18-cv-57-DPM

TIM RYALS, Sheriff, Faulkner County;
CHRISTOPHER RIED MUELLER,
Captain, Faulkner County Detention Center;
MATT RICE, Chief of Deputies, Faulkner
County Sheriff's Department; RUSTY
PAGE, Sergeant, Faulkner County Sheriff's
Department; GARY ANDREWS, Lieutenant,
Faulkner County Sheriff's Department;
MONTY HARPER, Officer, Faulkner County
Sheriff's Office; MATTHEW BIRDSONG,
Sergeant; ALRED DANE, Patrol Officer;
JOEY CRISAFULLI, Patrol Officer; and
DOES, Unknown Officers

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, NQ 32, granted. Reed may

proceed without paying the filing and administrative fees.
2. The Court granted Reed's motion to reopen this case. NQ 20 &

NQ 22.

Now the Court must screen the remaining claims in Reed's

amended complaints and supplement.
§

1915A.

NQ 8, NQ 9, NQ 21; 28 U.S.C.

3. Reed doesn't allege any actions by Mueller, Page, Andrews,
Birdsong, Dane, or Crisafulli that violated his constitutional rights. His
claims against these Defendants are therefore dismissed without
prejudice. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) .
4. Reed says that Ryals, Rice, and Harper were directly involved

in the allegedly unlawful stop, search, and arrest. He also says these
actions were all taken pursuant to an official policy or custom. NQ 8
at 6-7 & NQ 21. For screening purposes, these claims may proceed. The
Court directs the Clerk to prepare summonses for Ryals, Rice, and
Harper. The United States Marshals Service must serve the amended
complaints and supplement, NQ 8, NQ 9 & Ng 21, a summons, and this
Order on each of those Defendants without prepayment of fees and
costs or security. Ryals, Rice, and Harper should be served through the
Faulkner County Sheriff's Office, 801 Locust Street, Conway, Arkansas
72034.
5. Reed claims that his due process rights were violated because
he was charged by felony information rather than by grand jury
indictment, because the government "was drag[ging] its feet to dismiss
charges" against him, and because he wasn't given a probable cause
hearing. Ng 8 at 7, 10. There is no constitutional right to have criminal
charges brought in an indictment. Franklin v. White, 803 F.2d 416, 418
(8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). And Reed doesn't say how any of the
Defendants allegedly delayed the disposition of his state criminal case
-2-

or denied him a probable cause hearing. Reed's due process claims are
therefore dismissed without prejudice.
6. Reed also says that he wasn't appointed a lawyer.

As the

Magistrate Judge previously noted, though, it appears the circuit court
approved a public defender for Reed at his initial appearance. NQ 16

at 2-3. In any event, Reed doesn't say how any of these Defendants
caused the alleged denial of counsel. This claim is therefore dismissed
without prejudice, too.
7. Last, Reed says that his right of access to the courts was
violated because he wasn't given a bond hearing or a suppression
hearing in the state criminal case. NQ 8 at 10. It appears Reed's bond
was set at the initial appearance, though. NQ 16 at 2-3. And because the
criminal charges against Reed were nolle prossed, the lack of a
suppression hearing caused him no injury. White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d
677, 680-81 (8th Cir. 2007).

Further, Reed doesn't say how these

Defendants were responsible for either of those alleged violations. His
access-to-the-courts claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.
8. In addition to damages, Reed initially asked for his freedom
and for legal materials from the detention center. Because Reed's
criminal charges were nolle prossed and he was released, the latter two
requests are denied as moot.

-3-

So Ordered.
D .P. Marshall j r.
United States District Judge

-4-