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)

Download PDF
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-

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?