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

RICHARD R. PATTON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:21-CV-06039

HOT SPRING COUNTY JAIL 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 Robert T. Dawson, 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under § 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 April 7, 2021. (ECF No. 1). The sole named Defendant is the Hot Spring County Jail. (Id. at 2). II. LEGAL STANDARD Under § 1915A, 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).

1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes,

(E.D.N.C. 1987); In re

Tyler,

(8th Cir. 1988). 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,

(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)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Jackson,

(cleaned up). However, the complaint must still allege

specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous. The Hot Spring County Jail is not a person or a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983. See Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail,

(8th Cir. 2003) (jails are not legal entities amenable to suit); see also Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark.,

(8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “departments or subdivisions” of local government are not “juridical entities suable as such”); De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail,

(8th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court dismissal of county jail and sheriff’s department as parties because they are not suable entities). IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHUT PREJUDICE. The dismissal of this case constitutes a strike pursuant to

(g). It is therefore recommended that the Clerk be directed to place a § 1915 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 7th day of June 2021. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE