Mills v. Huffman et al

Filing 8

ORDER adopting, as modified, 4 Recommended Disposition; dismissing, without prejudice 2 complaint; denying, as moot, 5 Mr. Mills's motion to appoint counsel; recommending, in the future, dismissal of this action count as a strike; and certifying an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/28/2024. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
LUKE MILLS
#119075
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:23-cv-00701-KGB

HUFFMAN, Captain,
Faulkner County Jail; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate
Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff Luke Mills has not filed objections, and the time to do
so has passed. After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition in its
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects, with one modification: The Court understands Mr.
Mills to have alleged that he is a member of an indigent class and that his indigency is the basis of
the alleged discrimination (Dkt. No. 2, at 4).
Mr. Mills alleges that the facility in which he is incarcerated chose a phone company that
does not allow collect calls unless prisoners have “money on [t]he [b]ooks or on [th]e [p]hone”
and that he is “[i]ndigent and [has] [n]o way of calling [his] family” (Id.). The Court understands
Mr. Mills to allege membership within an indigent class or group and that Mr. Mills’s wealth is
the basis of the purported discrimination (Dkt. No. 2, at 4). Judge Volpe analyzes Mr. Mills’s
claim under rational basis review as a class-of-one claim (Dkt. No. 4, at 2–3). However, wealthbased discrimination against an indigent class is also subject to rational basis review. See San
Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28–29 (1973); Mark One Elec. Co., Inc. v. City
of Kansas City, 44 F.4th 1061, 1066 (8th Cir. 2022). The Court finds that Judge Volpe’s
Recommended Disposition properly analyzed Mr. Mills’s complaint under rational basis review

(Dkt. No. 4, at 3). Even if this is the claim Mr. Mills intended to allege, the outcome is the same.
For these reasons, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition as modified (Dkt. No.
4). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted (Dkt. No. 2). Mr. Mills’s motion to appoint counsel is denied
as moot (Dkt. No. 5). The Court recommends that, in the future, dismissal of this action count as
a strike under 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 and accompanying Judgment would be frivolous and
not taken in good faith.
It is so ordered this 28th day of August, 2024.

_________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

2