Stokes v. Gibson

Filing 10

ORDER approving and adopting 7 Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects - with one addition; dismissing, without prejudice, 2 Complaint; recommending that dismissal of this case co unt as a "strike"; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith; allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, he should (within 45 days of the date of this Order and the accompanying Judgment) file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision, attaching to it a proposed amended complaint. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 2/7/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEE EDWARD STOKES, JR.
ADC #128987
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:22-CV-00966-LPR

JAMES HOOT GIBSON

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the Plaintiff’s Objections.1 After a de novo review of the
RD, along with careful consideration of the Plaintiff’s Objections and the entire case record, the
Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions
in all respects—with one addition. The Court concludes that, pursuant to Rule 15, it should give
Plaintiff an opportunity to try and amend his Complaint.2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
1

Docs. 7 and 8.

2

In addition to what the RD has stated, the Court wishes to emphasize that the Plaintiff’s current Complaint is too
conclusory and vague to pass screening. Here are a few reasons why.

First, the Complaint is unclear as to whether the alleged understaffing continued after August of 2022. Because this
type of claim is based on a threat of future harm, it is problematic that there is no clear allegation that the inadequate
staffing continued through the date of the filing of the Complaint.
Second, the Complaint is mostly unclear as to what has happened in the past. It alleges that, on four or five occasions,
no corrections officers were in or around Cell Block 3 “for several hours at a time.” Compl. (Doc. 2) at 4. It also
alleges that, on those occasions and perhaps others, corrections officers did not do rounds every 30 minutes. Id. Those
allegations aren’t enough to plausibly state a claim. Except for the four or five specified days, we don’t know if
corrections officers did rounds every 45 minutes as opposed to every 30 minutes—which would be a violation of
policy but not of the Constitution. And, as for the specified days, four of five days of the problem alleged is not
serious enough to create a constitutional violation. The rest of the Complaint’s allegations of inadequate staffing are
completely conclusory. To state a plausible claim, Plaintiff needs to allege more facts as to what is occurring (or not
occurring) on an everyday basis in terms of correctional officer staffing or the lack thereof in Cell Block 3.
Third, the Complaint asks for relief the Court cannot award. Even if the Court had the authority to do so, ordering a
transfer of Plaintiff to another prison or unit is not an appropriate remedy here. And the Court notes the Plaintiff does
not seek an order requiring the Defendant to provide adequate staffing. Additionally, as the RD notes, the
compensatory damages request of $25,000 cannot go forward. Plaintiff does not seek either nominal or punitive
damages.

1

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court recommends that dismissal of this
case count as a “strike,” in the future, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the
accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. If Plaintiff wants to try to amend his
Complaint, he should (within 45 days of the date of this Order and the accompanying Judgment)
file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision, attaching to it a proposed amended
complaint. The court will review that proposed amendment to see if it states a viable claim. If it
does, the court will re-open the case. If it does not, the Court will deny the reconsideration motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February 2024.
________________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2