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

CHRISTOPHER WILKS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 4:19-cv-00719 JM

CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Christopher Wilks, in custody at the Sheridan City Detention Center, filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to

and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which has been granted. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3). I. Screening Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints,

(e), and prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages should be dismissed before the defendants are served.

(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly,

(2007), the Court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. Twombly,

. However, a pro se plaintiffs allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.,

(8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Il. Discussion Wilks’s claims arise out of a no-knock warrant executed at his residence on October 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 2). Wilks alleges that the information in the affidavit in support of the warrant contained false information. (/d.) He maintains that his home was unlawfully searched and that he was unlawfully charged and incarcerated based on items found during the search. Ud.) Wilks’s state criminal charges were dismissed just after the federal charges against him were filed. (dd. at 18). See also United States v. Wilks, 4:18-cv-00334-JM (E.D. Ark.). Wilks is still awaiting trial on the federal charges. Because the criminal charges against him are pending, Wilks’s civil case will be stayed until the criminal charges have been resolved. See Wallace v. Kato,

(2007). II. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to stay and administratively terminate this proceeding pending final disposition of Wilks’s federal criminal charges. 2. Wilks may file a motion to reopen this case after such final disposition. 3. This Court certifies that, pursuant to

(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order is considered frivolous and not in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21‘ day of November, 2019.

UNITED em f. TRICT JUDGE