IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BART WAYNE WOODARD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:21-CV-06003

DOROTHY GRIFFIN DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to

. Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 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 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 1). He alleges that on “approx[imately] last of March or First of April 2017” Defendant Griffin did not follow procedure in moving a punitive lockdown inmate. (Id. at 4). As a result, Plaintiff was assaulted by that inmate. (Id.) He further alleges that this failure constituted a failure to protect claim. (Defendant at 5). II. LEGAL 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 contains claims that: (1) 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,

(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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(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,

(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitation. Instead, causes of action under § 1983 are governed by “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.” Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.,

(1987) (§ 1981 case). See also Wilson v. Garcia,

(1985) (§ 1983 case); Bell v. Fowler,

, 265-266 (8th Cir. 1996) (§ 1985 case). In Arkansas, this is the three-year personal injury statute of limitations,

(3). See Miller v. Norris,

, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (

(3) is the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases). Plaintiff alleges that the incident in question occurred in either late March or on April 1st of 2017. Thus, the statute of limitations for the alleged incident ran as of April 1, 2020. Because Plaintiff filed this suit on January 8, 2021, it is barred by the statute of limitations. As such, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” under

(g). I therefore recommend that the clerk be directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case.

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to

(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. DATED this 20th day of January 2021. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE