Hamilton v. Cox

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Hamilton v. Cox

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

HOUSTON CLAY HAMILTON, JR PLAINTIFF

V. No. 3:21-CV-00179-DPM-JTR

SUSAN COX, Nurse, Poinsette County Detentions Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Since filing his Complaint on August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Houston Clay Hamilton, Jr. (“Hamilton”) has filed three Motions for Status. Docs. 6-8. Hamilton’s initial Motion for Status (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. Before Hamilton may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.1 His Complaint (Doc. 2) and Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 5) are currently under review by the Court. Once this screening review is complete, the Court will direct service upon the applicable Defendant(s) for claims that survive screening, if any.

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). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Hamilton’s Motion for Status (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 2. Hamilton’s second and third Motions for Status (Docs. 7 & 8) are DENIED, as moot. 3. The Clerk is directed to send Hamilton an updated copy of the docket sheet. DATED this 23rd day of November, 2021.

‘UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown