Buford v. Brown et al
ORDER instructing the Clerk to prepare a summons for Defendant Sharon Rollans; and directing the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant Rollans with a summons and a copy of 2 complaint and 7 amended complaint (with any attachments), without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 1/17/2023. (ldb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
STEPHEN LOUIS SHERMOND BUFORD
RODNEY D. BROWN, et al.
Plaintiff Stephen Louis Shermond Buford, an Arkansas Division of
Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc.
2. In his original complaint, Mr. Buford alleged that, on February 28, 2022: (1)
Sergeant Brandon Higgins and Lieutenant Lorrenetta Smith confiscated his personal
property; (2) Sergeant Higgins used derogatory language and called him racist
names; and (3) Captain Rodney Brown and Lieutenant John Martin used excessive
force against him. In addition, Mr. Buford explained that, for the three or four days
following the February 28, 2022 incident, unidentified ADC staff members: (1)
failed to provide him medical care; (2) turned off the water in his cell; and (3)
confiscated his mattress and blanket.
In a December 7, 2022 Order, the Court explained that, while Mr. Buford
stated excessive force claims against Defendants Brown and Martin, it was unclear
whether Mr. Buford also sought to proceed on a related medical deliberateindifference claim against unidentified ADC staff members. Accordingly, the Court
postponed the screening process mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A1 to give Mr.
Buford an opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims. Doc. 4.
Mr. Buford has now filed an amended complaint. Doc. 7.
In his amended complaint, Mr. Buford identifies Nurse Sharon Rollans as a
Defendant and explains that she failed to provide him medical treatment following
the underlying incident. In addition, Mr. Buford: (1) complains that Defendants
Brown and Martin failed to provide him medical treatment following the incident;
and (2) abandons his claims against Sergeant Brandon Higgins and Lieutenant
Lorrenetta Smith by failing to identify them as Defendants.2
For screening purposes, Mr. Buford has stated: (1) an excessive force claim
against Defendants Rodney D. Brown and John Martin; and (2) medical deliberate
indifference claims against Defendants Brown, Martin, and Sharon Rollans. The
Court previously issued service for Mr. Buford’s excessive force claims against
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).
The Court previously warned Mr. Buford that an amended complaint would supersede
the original complaint. Doc. 4 at 3 (citing 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)).
Defendants Brown and Martin.3 The Court now will issue service for Mr. Buford’s
medical deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Sharon Rollans.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
The Clerk is instructed to prepare a summons for Defendant Sharon
The United States Marshal is directed to serve Defendant Rollans with
a summons and a copy of the complaint and the amended complaint (with any
attachments) (Docs. 2,7), without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security.
Service for Defendant Rollans should be attempted through Humphries, Odom, &
Eubanks, 1901 Broadway Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206.
Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court previously recommended that Mr. Buford’s claim that Defendants Brown and
Martin violated his constitutional rights by allowing him to be housed in a cell without running
water, a mattress or blanket for three days be dismissed based on his failure to state a plausible
constitutional claim for relief. Doc. 8.
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?