Craig v. Trumann Police Department

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Craig v. Trumann Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION HUGH WILLIAM CRAIG, IT PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 3:19-cv-230-DPM TRUMANN POLICE DEPARTMENT; STEVE INBODEN; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE; STATE FARM INSURANCE; and DOES 1-3, Unknown Attorney/Judge, Unknown Trumann area electronic equipment operators, and Trumann School Board of 1987 DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. Craig’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Ne 1, is granted. He can’t afford the filing fee. 2. Craig has sued the Trumann police department, Judge Steve Inboden, Prudential Insurance, and State Farm Insurance.” He claims they physically and sexually abused him in various ways. His complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The allegations are conclusory and fanciful. Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992). And to the extent Judge Inboden was acting in his judicial capacity, he’s immune from suit. Woodworth v. Hulshof,

891 F.3d 1083, 1090-91

(8th Cir. 2018).

* The Court directs the Clerk to correct the names of Judge Inboden and Prudential Insurance on the docket.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 2.0 Sepliwn htn_ 2014

. -2-

Reference

Status
Unknown