Williams v. Thompson et al

Filing 5

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION recommending Williams' claims be dismissed without prejudice; dismissal of this action count as a "strike"; and the Court certify an in forma pauperis appeal from the order adopting this recommendation would not be taken in good faith. Objections due within 14 days of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 03/05/2025. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
DEVANTE WILLIAMS
#16-661
v.

PLAINTIFF
No: 4:24-cv-00922-KGB-PSH

THOMPSON, et al.

DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District
Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this
Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you
may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff Devante Williams, a pre-trial detainee at the Conway County
Detention Center, filed a pro se complaint on October 24, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). His
application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted (Doc. No. 3). At the
Court’s direction, Williams filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 4). The Court

has screened Williams’ amended complaint, and for the reasons described herein,
finds that he fails to describe facts sufficient to state a claim for relief.
I. Screening Standard
Federal law requires courts to screen prisoner complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
1915(e)(2). Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim
for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages
should be dismissed before the defendants are served.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

1915(e)(2). Although a complaint requires only a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, the factual allegations set forth
therein must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (“a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .”). While construed liberally, a pro se
complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face, not merely conceivable.
II. Analysis
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the
conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams alleges that Faulkner County Detention Center officers
Thompson and Solomon were responsible for him losing certain personal property,
including “important legal documents” when he was transferred to a court hearing
in September 2024. Doc. No. 4 at 4. He further claims that Corporal McJunkins at
the Faulkner County Detention Center responded to his complaints regarding the lost
property “with negligence” when he went through booking there. Id. Williams seeks
$500,000 for emotional damages and to be “reimbursed” his legal documents and
personal clothing. Id. at 5. Williams fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, for the reasons described below.
First, Williams cannot state a viable constitutional claim based on the loss of
his personal property because Arkansas provides an adequate post-deprivation
remedy when property is wrongfully taken. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
533 (1984) (unauthorized deprivation of property does not constitute violation of
procedural due process if meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Willis
Smith & Co., Inc. v. Arkansas, 548 F.3d 638, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (Arkansas provides
adequate post-deprivation remedy for property claims through the Arkansas State
Claims Commission).
Second, Williams fails to state a First Amendment access-to-courts claim
based on the loss of his legal materials. In Bounds v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized that prisoners’ constitutional right of access to the courts is well-

established. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). However, to succeed on a
claim for a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must
establish that he or she suffered an actual injury or prejudice caused by the denial of
access to legal materials, counsel, or the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349
(1996). See also White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2007) (“To prove a
violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish
the state has not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s
sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of law, which resulted in actual
injury, that is, the hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious underlying
legal claim.”). The injury requirement “is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated
legal claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. The claim must involve an attempt by the
inmate to pursue direct appeal from a conviction for which he or she is incarcerated,
a habeas petition, or an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate the violation of a
basic constitutional right. Id. at 355 (“The tools [required by Bounds] are those that
the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in
order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any other
litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional)
consequences of conviction and incarceration.”).
Williams has not described the legal materials he lost, what type of case they
concerned, or how he has met the injury requirement necessary to bring a viable First

Amendment access-to-courts claim. Accordingly, Williams’ access-to-courts claim
should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that:
1.

Williams’ claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.

Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3.

The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma

pauperis appeal from the order adopting this recommendation would not be taken in
good faith.
SO RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE