Odum v. Hobbs et al

Filing 7

ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare summons on defendants Hobbs, Banks, Page, Meinzer, and Thrower. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the summons, complaint, amended complaint and this Order on defendants without prepayment of fees therefore. The 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. An in forma pauperis appeal of any portion of this Order would notbe taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/8/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JASONODUM
ADC #134272

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:13-cv-241-DPM-JTR

v.

RAY HOBBS, Director, ADC;
JIMMY BANKS, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC;
JOE PAGE III, Assistant Warden, Varner Unit,
ADC; CURTIS MEINZER, Deputy Warden,
Varner Unit, ADC; RICHARD THROWER,
Correctional Sergeant, Varner Unit, ADC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1.

Odum has filed this prose§ 1983 action alleging that defendants

violated his constitutional rights at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction(" ADC"). NQ 2 & 6. The Court must screen Odum's
allegations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2.

Odum has stated viable § 1983 claims that (a) Thrower used

excessive force against him, (b) Hobbs, Banks, Page, and Meinzer failed to
protect him from Thrower's improper use of force, and (c) all five defendants
retaliated against him. They will therefore be served.

-1-

3.

The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Hobbs, Banks,

Page, Meinzer, and Thrower. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the
summons, complaint, amended complaint, and this Order on them through
the ADC Compliance Division without prepayment of fees and costs or
security therefor. If any of the defendants are no longer ADC employees, the
individual responding to service must file the unserved defendant's last
known private mailing address under seal.
4.

Odum also alleges that all five defendants violated his procedural

due process rights during his disciplinary proceeding. Odum however did
not have a constitutional right to due process during that disciplinary
proceeding because he did not have a liberty interest in avoiding temporary
placement in punitive isolation, Orr v. Larkins, 610 F.3d 1032, 1034 (8th Cir.
2010), or maintaining his classification level, Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893,
894 (8th Cir. 1994). His due process claim is therefore dismissed without
prejudice.
5.

Odum's motion for a preliminary injunction, NQ 3, is denied

because he has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or probable success on

-2-

the merits of any of his claims. Arnzen v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.
2013). The surviving claims are plausible; but the Court cannot say at this
point that Odum is likely to prevail.
6.

An in forma pauperis appeal of any portion of this Order would not

be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.

~to-1d.J/~'-·

D.P. Mars all Jr.
United States District Judge
8 October 2013

-3-