Hice v. Arkansas Driver Control et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint 2 and MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Kenneth D. Hice. Objections to R&R due by 12/24/2009. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on December 7, 2009. (sh)

I N TIIE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COTJRT WESTERN DISTRICTOF ARI{.A,NSAS F O R T SMITH DryISION K E N N E T H HICE D.
PLAIN'IIIIF

ARKA N S A SDRIVERCONTROL; ARKA N S A SSTATEPOLICE, TROOP H ; andARKANSAS STATETROOPER GERRIT NEIHVS

DF,I,'IJNDANTS

R E P O R TAND RECOMMENDATIONOFTHE MACISTRATE JUDGE, T h i s is a civil rightsactionfiled by theplaintiff, Kennoth -tlice(hcrcinalier D. Hice), p u l s u a n t 42 I.J.S.C.I983. Theclcrkis directed filetltein.forrna to pau;rerrs kr applicariou irnd $ conrpla i n t.Betbrcthe courtis Hice's rnotion tbr leaveto proceed forma puryterx. Fot the in reasonstated s below,it is therccommefldation theundcrsigned Hioe'sin./ornr pauperis of that a a p p l i c a t i obe rlenied hiscomnlairrl dismissed. rr and be Backqround A c c o r d i n to thcallegations complaint, g ofthe Hice's driver's license was.,tak{rni'in 1997 asa resultof a driving while underthe influenoe (DWI) chargc receiveri Logancounry, hc in Arkansas. Hicealleges he wasnevercharged that with a DWI. I l i c c allcgcs Drivercontrol agcnt Gcorge overbee, hewastakingtheDWI charge as off Hice's r-ecortl, thconlythirrg could Hiccwaslhatthecharge said he tell involvcd state a trooPer. The following daywhenHioe wentto gct his license back,Ilice allcgcsthe IJWI charge was backon his record.Overthepasttwelveyears, Ilice allcges hasrepeated proccss he this marry t i m c s .Hioestates hasdonea lot of timein jail anttwas..robbed [his]prolbssion." he of A s relief Hicewants driver's his license restorcd it$I'ormer to status. Ilealsowantsthe drivingon a suspentled licensecharges stricken from his rccord. Finally,he seeks monerary -l -

AO72A (Rev.8/82)

c o n t p c n s a t i o n lost wages,delamationofcharacler,jai I time, lost oars,and undueharrlship. lbr Disrussifi P u r s u a n tto 28 I].S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B) the dourl has the obligatirh to screen ny c o f f i p l d i f l t in which a plairrtilT seeksto proceedin Jbrma paupens. In reviewing ln it Jisrmtt p u u J t e r iapplication, s thcrcis a two stepprocess lbllowedby thecourt.First,a dctcrmination of w h e t h e r thc plaintiff qualifies by cconomic stntus undcr $ l9l-5(a) and, if so, to permit the c o t n p l a i n t to be filed. Second,a determinationof whether the causeof action stated in the c o m p l a i n t is frivolous or malicious and, if so, to dismiss thc complaint. Martin-Trigona v. s t e w a r t , 6 9 t F.zd 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982). 28 t/.S.C. g t9t5(e)(2)(B)(onrcvicw, rhc courris t o dismiss complaint, anyportionol'the complaint, thc or that is flrivolous, malicious, failsto or s t a t ea clairn upon which relief rnay be granted,or seeksmonetaryrelief from a defeldant who i s imrnunefrom suchrelief.). S.ee a/so28 U.S.C.$ I9l5A(b). I n his afiidavit,Hice indioates hasa limitedincome,owns nothingof value,andhas he o n l y a small amountof money in cash,or checkingor savingsaccounts($296). 'I he infomration s u p p l i e t lhy Hioe appetrs to be sufficient to detemriuetliat he would qualify by econopio status f o r in.forma paupdfls status. H o w e v e r , IIice's claims stemmingfrom his drivcr's liccnsccrroneouslyheing takcn away i n l!)97 aresubject dismissal.First,his claimsarebarred the statute lifiitatidns. Section to hy of g 1 9 8 3docsnot cofltaiflits dwn stdtute limitation. Instead, of causes aotjonr.mtler l9B3 are of g o v e n e d by "lhe nrostappropriateor analogous statestatuteoflimitatiotts." Goodmanv.Lltktns S t e e l C o . , 4 8U.S.656,660(1987X$ ? l98l case). aiso Wilsott Garcia,4it U.S.26t,Z68 v. 6'ee ( 1 9 8 5 X 4 1983case);Bell v. It'owler,99F.3d 262, 265-266(Bth Cir. t996Xg t9B5 casc). In A r k a n s a sthis is the th'ee year pcrsonalinjury statutcof limitations,Ark. (irdc Ann. I6-56,

105(3)(2005) SeeMillerv.Norrs,247F.3d736,739(BrhCir.200t)(Ark.CodeAnn.$16-5 -2-

AO72A (Rev.8/82)

1 0 5 ( 3isthestatute ) oflirnitations applicablc $ 1983 to cascs). Thus, claims any bascd cvcnts on thatoccurred 1997,wouldbe biuredby the statute limitations. in of S e c o n dunderthe Sovereign , Inmunity Clause thc ElcvcnthAmendmcnt. statc, of a its agcncic sandagcncy , officials actingin their oFficialcapacities not persons are subject suit to undcrscction1983lbr moneyd amrges.IItilI v. Michigan Departmafiof Sto.te Pollce,49l U.S. 5 8 .65-67, S Cr.2304, L. Ed.2d 45 (1989). 109 105 T h i rd , the regulationof motor vehioles uponthe highways a stateis regarded a of as r n a t t epnnrarily r withinthepolicepower thestate.See of l-ledrit:k Muryktnd,235 v. U.S.610, 3 5 S.Ct. I 40,59I,. Ed.385(1915).A license operate motorvehiclc a privilcgc granted to a is by thc state is no1detivecl and fiom tmintlividual'sstatus a UnitedStates as citizenor from the f e d e r aconstitution. e.g.,I4tallv. l Stre King,109F. Supp.198,199(D. Mass.1953). Conclusion A c c o td i n g l yit is therecommendation , ofthe undersigned Hice'srcqucst procccd that to inJonnapuuperu be deniedandthe complaint dismisscd be with prcjudicc. H i c e has fourteen(14) dflysfrom receiptof thls report and recommendation in pursuflnt 28U.S.C. 636(bxl). The failureto file timely w h i c hto file writtenobjections to $ o b j e c t i o n may resultin waiverof thc right to appeal s questions lhct. King is reminded of t h a t obiections mu$tbe both timelyand specific trigger de novoreviewby the district to court, IIA T E D this -l day of Decemher 2009,

weslefir'rBpffi%%ffi'rusns
[}E[ 072ggg
citRjs J0lti$o{,qtfiK R. F F q NCLEIIK T
AO72A (Rev.8/82)

, JAMESR. MARSCHEWSKI STA'TES MAG]STRATE .ITJDGE

-3-