Sayres v. Grudek et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 10, 2015. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
PLAINTIFF
ROBERT G. SAYRES
v.
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03065
SHERIFF ROBERT GRUDEK, Carroll
County, Arkansas; RAY HOBBS, Director
of the Arkansas Department of Correction;
DAVE MUNIZ, Berryville Police Department;
and JAMIN MARTIN, Parole Officer
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 21)
of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas, filed in this case on April 15, 2015, regarding Plaintiff Robert Gregory Sayres's
action under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also before the Court are Sayres's
Objections to the R & R (Doc. 23). The Court has reviewed the record de novo as to all
specified proposed findings and recommendations to which Sayres has raised objections,
as per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ), and determined that the Objections offer neither law nor fact
sufficient to justify deviating from the findings and conclusions announced in the R & R.
Accordingly, the R & R is APPROVED and ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Below the Court
will address Sayres's Objections, beginning with a brief review of the facts alleged in the
case.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states that Sheriff Grudek and his officers have been
harassing and falsely imprisoning Sayres "over and over" for the past 19 years. (Doc. 12,
p. 4). The R & R observes that Sayres has filed multiple law suits since 2009 concerning
these allegations, in particular asserting that he suffered damages arising from his
conviction for having written three hot checks, his alleged employment with the Berryville
Police in 1995 or 1996, and various retaliatory encounters he has had w ith law
enforcement. (Doc. 21, p. 4) . Each case previously filed by Sayres in this Court was
dismissed for various reasons, and the instant case is no exception. As explained in the
R & R, Sayres's current case is subject to dismissal due to the application of the doctrine
of res judicata, the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, and for failure to state
legally cognizable causes of action.
Sayres only objects to the dismissal of claims against Defendant Muniz. In his
Objections, he clarifies:
I Robert Sayres comes before this Court at this Time to only "object" to
The Dismissed part of my Case of officer chief Dave Muniz of the
Berryville Police Dept. (I wish only to keep this officer in my Case) And,
Dissmisse all other Defendants. at this Time . and "moving forward" with
"Chief Dave Muniz" only For Constitution Right Violations . For th is
Unconstitution Sentence "at this time for" Felon poss of Fire Airm , And
Fail to Appear. Double Jeperdy
(Doc. 23) (errors in original) .
Focusing on Sayres's claims against Muniz, it appears he disputes the Magistrate's
conclusion that they are time-barred . Sayres is incorrect. Causes of action under§ 1983
are governed by "the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations ." Goodman
v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660 (1987). In Arkansas, this is the three-year personal
injury statute of limitations found at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105(3) (2005). See Miller v.
Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (noting that Ark. Code Ann.§ 16-56-105(3) sets
forth the statute of limitations applicable to§ 1983 cases). As nearly all of Sayres's § 1983
2
claims are based on alleged injuries that occurred prior to June of 2011, they are barred
by the statute of limitations. See Doc. 12, p. 13 (listing in detail all claims alleged against
Muniz). To the extent Sayres asserts claims against Muniz based on a September 2013
unlawful detainment/arrest, Sayres admits that this detainment came about after he turned
himself in to the Boone County Jail "for an old charge of failure to appear on a 1995 hot
check charge." Id. at p. 2. Moreover, even when the Court construes the facts surrounding
this 2013 incident in the light most favorable to Sayres, there are no facts that indicate
Muniz violated Sayres's constitutional rights, including his Fourth and Eighth Amendment
rights.
Overall, the Court is troubled by Sayres's history of filing frivolous, repeated lawsuits
asserting the same core allegations of fact, and, in many cases, suing the same
defendants. Seven of Sayres's lawsuits complaining of a nearly 20-year conspiracy by law
enforcement and court officials in Boone and Carroll Counties to, essentially, keep him in
jail and in constant trouble with the law, were filed pro se and in forma pauperis. He
received "three strikes," as per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), after three of his prior in forma
pauperis actions were dismissed as frivolous, and in the instant lawsuit, he was ordered
to pay the filing fee and was denied in forma pauperis status due to his three strikes. Both
this case and another pending before this Court, Case No. 3:14-CV-03128, are similarly
frivolous, duplicative, and subject to dismisf al.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that any attorney or prose litigant certify
that a complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as harassment or
unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Fed. Rule Civ. P.
3
11 (b)(1 ). Rule 11 also requires that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions in
a complaint be warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,
modifying or reversing existing law or establishing new law. Fed . R. Civ. P. 11 (b)(2).
Although prose complaints are to be construed liberally, they must conform to the baseline
requirements of Rule 11. Kurkowski v. Volcker, 819 F.2d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1987). A pro
se complaint may be frivolous if "filed in the face of previous dismissals involving the exact
same parties under the same legal theories." Id.
In light of the above reasoning, IT IS ORDERED that the R & R (Doc. 21) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. All claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b), withjudgmentto enter contemporaneously. All other
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court refrain from filing any documents
tendered by Plaintiff without prior authorization given either by the undersigned or by a
United States Magistrate Judge forthe Western District of Arkansas to which the case has
been referred or assigned. The Court orders this Rule 11 sanction in order to prevent
Plaintiff's abuse of the legal system through his repeated, claim-barred, time-barred,
frivolous filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this
~
/0 -
day of August:
2115. - ~
~~
~IMOTH}( L.,.BROOKS
/
UNITECtSf
ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?