Stuart v. Combs et al

Filing 8

ORDER: Case dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii; clerk is directed to place a "Strike" flag on the case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 29, 2018. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
GERRAL SCHRAY STUART

v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:18-cv-4008

OFFICER NANCY COMBS, Miller
County Detention Center (“MCDC”); and
OFFICER COBWELL, MCDC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Gerral Schray Stuart filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is currently before the Court for preservice
screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to the PLRA,
the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1). He is currently incarcerated
in the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”) as a pre-trial detainee. Plaintiff has named Nancy
Combs and Officer Cobwell as Defendants in this action, and makes two claims against them. First,
Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated on December 11, 2017, when Defendant
Cobwell told him it was Defendant Combs’s responsibility to return his “legal paperwork” to him.
(ECF No. 1, p. 4). His second claim is that Defendant Combs refused to “get [him] back [his] legal
documents on time on an ongoing case.” (ECF No. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges no injury with respect to
either of these two claims. In what appears to be a handwritten grievance attached to the Complaint,
Plaintiff specifically alleges that on December 11, 2017, Defendant Cobwell mishandled his

“Certificate of Inmate Amount and Assets Form” and that Defendant Combs refused to sign off on this
paperwork. 1 (ECF No. 1, p. 8-9).
Plaintiff asserts his claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Although he has not alleged any specific injury as a result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000, in addition to the firing of all
officers who did not properly preform their jobs. (ECF No. 1, p. 7).
II. STANDARD
Under the PLRA, the court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it: (1) contains claims that are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does
not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient
facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir.
2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). However, even a pro se plaintiff must
allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985).

1

Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not describe the “legal paperwork” that is the subject of his claims, the Court
assumes that Plaintiff refers to the Certificate of Inmate Amount and Assets Form that he references in his handwritten
grievance.

2

III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has asserted claims against Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.
For purposes of this screening order, the Court will first examine Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims.
The Court will then examine Plaintiff’s official capacity claims.
A. Individual Capacity Claims
Plaintiff claims that Defendants mishandled and refused to sign his Certificate of Inmate
Account and Assets form on December 11, 2017. In order to complete an application to proceed in
forma pauperis in a section 1983 lawsuit, a prisoner is required to complete the Certificate and obtain
the signature of an authorized prison officer, confirming how much money the prisoner has in his
account and indicating what the prisoner’s monthly average account balance has been for the previous
six months. 2
The Supreme Court has held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by
providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Prison officials must provide inmates with “meaningful
access to the courts.” Id. at 824. To prevail on a denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, a prisoner must
show that “the state has not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s
sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of law, which resulted in actual injury, that is, the
hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious underlying legal claim.” Hartsfield v. Nichols,
511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s claims fail because he has not alleged that he suffered actual injury or
prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants mishandled and refused to sign his Certificate of Inmate
Account and Assets on December 11, 2017. Plaintiff filed one section 1983 suit with this Court before

2

The Court assumes, for purposes of this Order, that Plaintiff wanted the Certificate of Inmate Account and Assets
form in order to file a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

that date (Stuart v. Sanders, No. 4:17-cv-4107-SOH, filed on November 30, 2017), and four section
1983 suits with this Court after that date (Stuart v. King, No. 4:17-cv-4119-SOH and Stuart v. Cobwell,
No. 4:17-cv-4120-SOH, both filed on December 20, 2017, and the instant case and Stuart v. Smith,
No. 4:18-cv-4006-SOH, both filed on January 10, 2018). In each of these ongoing cases, Plaintiff
submitted a Certificate of Inmate Account and Assets that was signed and completed by Defendant
Combs. The Court accepted the Certificate and granted Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma
pauperis in each of these lawsuits. Plaintiff has failed to identify the ongoing court proceeding related
to his claims and has failed to allege how Defendants’ actions denied him access to the courts. Further,
Plaintiff has failed to allege with specificity that he suffered actual injury because of Defendants’
actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim against Defendants in their individual
capacities. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims should be dismissed.
B. Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff also asserts claims against Defendants in their official capacities. Official capacity
claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v.
Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). In other words, an official capacity
claim against Defendants is treated as a claim against their employing governmental entity, Miller
County. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir. 2010).
“[I]t is well established that a municipality [or county] cannot be held liable on a respondeat
superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” Atkinson v. City of Mountain View,
Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1214 (8th Cir. 2013). To establish Miller County’s liability under section 1983,
“plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to an official custom,
policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted). To establish the existence of an unconstitutional policy, a plaintiff must point to “a
deliberate choice of a guiding principle or procedure made by the municipal official who has final
authority regarding such matters.” Mettler v. Whiteledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir. 1999). In

4

Johnson v. Douglas County Medical Department, the Eighth Circuit outlined the necessary elements
for establishing the existence of an unconstitutional custom:
To establish a claim for “custom” liability, [Plaintiff] must demonstrate: 1) The
existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; 2) Deliberate indifference to or
tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity’s policymaking officials
after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and 3) That Plaintiff was injured by acts
pursuant to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e., that the custom was the moving
force behind the constitutional violation.
725 F.3d 825, 838 (8th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff has not described any custom or policy of the MCDC that caused any
alleged violation of his constitutional rights. He has simply alleged that Defendants mishandled and
refused to sign his Certificate of Inmate Account and Asset form on one occasion. (ECF No. 1, p. 56). Accordingly, Plaintiff has a failed to state an official capacity claim against Defendants. Therefore,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims should be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). The dismissal of this case
constitutes a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place
a section 1915 strike flag on the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of January, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

5