Johnson v. Gibson et al
Filing
11
ORDER approving and adopting #5 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects except as stated in this Order; granting #7 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, #8 Amended Complaint shall now serve as the operative Complaint in this case; directing the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses for Classification Supervisor Bell, Corporal Carrington, and Sergeant Minor; directing the U.S. Marshal to serve each of these Defendants with a summons and a copy of #8 Amended Complaint, without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security; instructing the Clerk to terminate Warden Gibson, Chief of Security Carl Lewis, and Captain/Shift Supervisor Madden as party Defendants; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 1/28/2025. (ldb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
SPENCER JOHNSON
ADC #159762
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:24-cv-01095-LPR-ERE
JAMES GIBSON, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin (Doc. 5) and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 6). After a de
novo review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the Objections and the entire case
record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the PRD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and
conclusions in all respects except as stated below.
The PRD recommends that Defendants Gibson, Bell, Lewis, and Madden be dismissed
based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them.1 Plaintiff agrees that Defendants Gibson,
Lewis, and Madden should be dismissed, but he objects to the dismissal of Classification
Supervisor Bell as a Defendant.2 He has therefore moved to amend his Complaint, naming only
Classification Supervisor Bell, Corporal Carrington, and Sergeant Minor as Defendants.3 In his
proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff clarifies his allegations against Defendant Bell by
describing her personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff alleges that
1
PRD (Doc. 5) at 5.
2
See Objections (Doc. 6); Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. (Doc. 7).
3
Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. (Doc. 7); Am. Compl. (Doc. 8). In a previous Order, Judge Ervin found that, for
screening purposes only, Plaintiff had stated deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Carrington and Minor
in their individual capacities. Order (Doc. 4). Judge Ervin already ordered service with respect to those claims.
See Order (Doc. 4). The proposed Amended Complaint does not materially alter Plaintiff’s allegations against these
two Defendants, but it properly drops the official-capacity claims brought against them in his original Complaint.
Am. Compl. (Doc. 8) at 2–5. Plaintiff also names Defendant Bell in her individual capacity only. Id. at 1.
Defendant Bell assigned him to the same hallway as his attacker despite knowing about the first
attack and the corresponding significant risk to Plaintiff’s safety.4 The Court finds, for screening
purposes, that Plaintiff has stated a deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Bell in her
individual capacity. This is not to say that the claim would withstand an adversarial motion to
dismiss. In fact, the Court tentatively suspects that the opposite may be true. But, out of an
abundance of caution, the Court chooses to allow the above-described claim against Bell through
screening.
Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint properly addresses the issues noted in the PRD,
the Court will grant the request to amend and will order service of the Amended Complaint on
Defendants Bell, Carrington, and Minor.
Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
The Amended Complaint entered on the docket on January 21, 2025 (Doc. 8) shall now serve as
the operative Complaint in this case.
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare summonses for Classification Supervisor
Bell, Corporal Carrington, and Sergeant Minor.
3.
The United States Marshal is directed to serve each of these Defendants with a
summons and a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), without requiring prepayment of fees
and costs or security. Service for all Defendants should be attempted through the Arkansas
Division of Correction Compliance Division, P.O. Box 40550, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71612.
4.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate Warden Gibson, Chief of Security Carl Lewis,
and Captain/Shift Supervisor Madden as party Defendants.
4
Am. Compl. (Doc. 8) at 2–3.
2
5.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January 2025.
_______________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?