McGoogan v. Cockran
McGoogan v. Cockran
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION
TOMMY J. MCGOOGAN PLAINTIFF ADC #147267
V. NO. 3:21-cv-00221-JM-ERE
ALLEN COCKRAN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER Plaintiff Tommy J. McGoogan, an inmate at the North Central Unit, filed this lawsuit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983without the help of a lawyer. Doc. 2. According to Mr. McGoogan, while he was being held at the Independence County Jail (“ICJ”), officers employed excessive force against him, and he was not provided medical care. Doc. 2. The Court needs further information to complete the required statutory screening of the Complaint.1 Thus, the Court will allow Mr. McGoogan thirty days to file an Amended Complaint.
1The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints, and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678(2009); Reynolds v. Dormire,
636 F.3d 976, 979(8th Cir. 2011). First, Mr. McGoogan must explain the nature of his status at the ICJ when the alleged unconstitutional acts occurred. He stated he was being held at the ICJ for
assaulting a police officer, but this does not provide the Court with his status. Doc. 2 at 4. Mr. McGoogan must explain whether he: (1) had been arrested, but not yet convicted; (2) was serving a sentence as the result of being convicted of a crime; or
(3) was in jail for a probation violation. Second, Mr. McGoogan alleges that “officers” employed excessive force against him by beating him and “sicking the K-9 dogs” on him while he was in custody at the ICJ. Doc. 2 at 5. Later in the Complaint, he alleges that Officer
Mullens “physically assaulted” him at the ICJ.
Id.Mr. McGoogan must explain if he is referring to one or two separate incidents of alleged excessive force. Third, Mr. McGoogan must: (1) identify the officers that beat him and ordered
the K-9 attack; (2) explain what he was doing before the alleged beating and attack occurred; and (3) describe any injuries he suffered as a result of the attack. Likewise, with regards to his allegations against Officer Mullens, assuming this was a separate incident, Mr. McGoogan must explain: (1) what he was doing before Officer
Mullens assaulted him; (2) what Officer Mullens did to assault him; and (3) describe any injuries he suffered as a result of the attack. Fourth, Mr. McGoogan alleges that Officer Swain refused “to get [him]
medical attention” and John Doe, a nurse, refused to provide him assistance. Doc. 2 at 5. Mr. McGoogan must explain why he needed medical attention, and why Officer Swain and John Doe should have known he needed medical attention.
Fifth, Mr. McGoogan states that Captain Moody sent him to the hospital because his blood pressure was over 300. Doc. 2 at 5. Mr. McGoogan must explain what Captain Moody did or failed to do that violated his constitutional rights.
Finally, Mr. McGoogan identifies Chief Allen Cockran, Captain Scarbrough, Sheriff Shawn Stephens, Sergeant Rick Davis, and Officer Branscomb as Defendants in this lawsuit, but he does not mention them in the body of his Complaint. There is no supervisor liability in a lawsuit brought under § 1983, rather
each named Defendant must be personally involved in any alleged Constitutional violation. Accordingly, Mr. McGoogan must state facts to show how each named Defendant was personally involved in violating his constitutional rights or they will
be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Tommy J. McGoogan is allowed to file, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, an Amended Complaint containing the specified information. 2. If he fails to file an Amended Complaint, the Court will screen his original Complaint, which is likely to result in the dismissal of some or all of his claims. DATED this 28" day of October, 2021.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown