United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 2021

Williams v. James

Williams v. James
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas · Decided August 19, 2021
Williams v. James

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DELTA DIVISION

ANTONIO WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF ADC #152981 v. CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00106 BSM BILL JAMES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Antonio Williams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is granted, but he must pay the full filing fee of $350. His complaint [Doc. No. 2] is dismissed without prejudice.

Williams’s initial partial filing fee is $87.31. Williams’s custodian shall withdraw any portion of the partial filing fee available and continue to do so until the partial fee has been paid in full. After the partial filing fee is paid, Williams’s custodian shall withdraw monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account each time the account exceeds $10 until the statutory fee has been paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Warden of the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 970, Marianna, Arkansas 72360; the ADC Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office, P.O. Box 8908, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611; and the ADC Compliance Office, P.O. Box 20550, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71612.

Williams’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice because Williams has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Jurisdiction over any state law claims is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith and this dismissal counts as a “strike.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This is the case because Williams’s in forma pauperis status triggers automatic screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He is suing his seven criminal defense lawyers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming they violated his constitutional rights. Doc. No. 2. The lawyers, however, are not state actors and Williams has failed to allege that they willfully participated with state actors. See Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2021.

Bro A AM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.