Waller v. Nicholson et al

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing Complaint without prejudice for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted re 1 Complaint. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 22, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

JORDAN WALLER
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 4:15-cv-04091

JANICE NICHOLSON; JIMMY WISE;
DARREN BLACK; and JESSIE GRIGSBY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On September 9, 2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff filed this pro se lawsuit
alleging that his rights were violated while he was employed at the Miller County Detention Center
in Texarkana, Arkansas.1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is currently an inmate of the Arkansas Department
of Correction–Wrightsville Unit. Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Eastern District of
Arkansas; however, the Eastern District properly transferred the case to this Court on September
16, 2015. ECF No. 2. Currently before the Court is the issue of preservice screening pursuant to
the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA provides that the Court
shall review complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine if the matter shall proceed. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s claims stem from an incident that occurred in 2008 while he was employed as
a correctional officer at the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”). The Defendants in this

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to either submit an application for in forma pauperis status or pay the filing fee
in this matter.

case are all either current or former employees of the Miller County Detention Center.2 Plaintiff
makes the following claims in his complaint: (1) the Defendants fabricated charges against him;
(2) the Defendants planted evidence on him; and (3) the Defendants perjured themselves at his
criminal trial. Plaintiff also lists the claims of slander, false advertisement, filing false reports with
law enforcement, false imprisonment, and kidnaping as his individual capacity claims against
Defendants. Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages for these alleged violations.
ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff states that the following incident occurred on June 1, 2008, while he was working
the night shift at the MCDC. While on duty, he received a phone call from a woman waiting
outside the MCDC. Plaintiff went outside and retrieved a Wendy’s food sack from the woman.
The woman requested that Plaintiff give the Wendy’s food sack to an inmate inside the MCDC.
Plaintiff then conducted a “minor search” of the food sack and determined that it contained a taco,
a baked potato, and a cup of chili. Plaintiff claims that he did not see any contraband inside the
food sack. ECF No. 1, p. 9. Later that same night, after searching the bag, Defendants determined
that the food sack contained contraband. Specifically, Defendants alleged that the baked potato
concealed a cell phone hidden inside; the taco concealed two syringes hidden inside; and the chili
concealed a “leafy substance” wrapped in small “small discs” and rolling papers hidden inside.
ECF No. 1, pp. 9-10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made a “concerted effort” to manufacture

2

Plaintiff states that he is suing Janice Nicholson, former warden of Miller County Detention Center, in her individual
and official capacities. ECF No. 1, pp. 3-4. Plaintiff states that he is suing the following Defendants only in their
individual capacities: Jimmy Wise, Darren Black, and Jessie Grigsby. ECF No. 1, pp. 4-7.

-2-

a case against him, plant evidence on him, and deny his constitutional due process rights. ECF No.
1, pp. 4-10.3
APPLICABLE LAW
Pursuant to the screening provisions of the PLRA, the Court must determine whether the
causes of action stated in Plaintiff’s complaint (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail to state claims
upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915(A). A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To state
a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant, acting under color of state
law, deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or
by federal law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
DISCUSSION
In this case, all Plaintiff’s claims stem from his June 1, 2008 arrest and subsequent
conviction and incarceration. Plaintiff, however, did not file his complaint until September 9,
2015, more than seven years after the events at issue occurred.
Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations. Instead, causes of action under
section 1983 are governed by “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.”
Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660 (1987) (section 1981 case); see also Wilson v.
Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268 (1985) (section 1983 case); Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 265-266 (8th
Cir. 1996) (section 1985 case). Arkansas applies the three-year personal injury statute of
limitations, found at Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-56-105(3), to section 1983 cases. See Miller

3

Plaintiff, however, admits that marijuana “for his own personal use” was found on his person but claims that any other
contraband was “planted.” ECF No. 1, p. 10.

-3-

v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105(3) is the statute of
limitations applicable to section 1983 cases). Because Plaintiff waited until 2015 to file his
complaint regarding events that occurred in 2008, his claims are barred by the applicable three year
statute of limitations.
Furthermore, in his complaint, Plaintiff uses the terms due process, slander, perjury, false
advertisement, and kidnaping to challenge his arrest, conviction, and incarceration. However,
Plaintiff may not use the civil rights statutes as substitutes for habeas corpus relief. In other
words, he cannot seek declaratory or injunctive relief relating to his confinement or conviction in
a section 1983 complaint. See e.g., Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-89 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas
corpus is the sole federal remedy for prisoners attacking the validity of their conviction or
confinement). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims regarding his confinement in the Arkansas
Department of Correction fail to state cognizable claims under section 1983.
Moreover, Plaintiff requests damages as a result of his alleged illegal conviction and
incarceration. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination,
or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or
sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87.

Plaintiff did not make any allegations that his criminal conviction has

been overturned. A section 1983 claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction

-4-

is premature. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims regarding the illegality of his conviction and
incarceration are not cognizable claims under section 1983.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted, the Court
finds that Plaintiff's complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of February, 2016.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

-5-