IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

ROBERT JEROME WILLIAMS JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:21-cv-01005

GUY HUGHES, Detective Crossett Police Department; JUSTIN DUBOSE, Detective Crossett Police Department; DAVID CASON, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; and THOMAS DEAN, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Robert Jerome Williams Jr. pursuant to

. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 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. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the Arkansas Division of Correction,1 East Arkansas Regional Unit in Marianna, Arkansas. He filed his original complaint on January 11, 2021. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted that same day. (ECF No. 3). In response to this Court’s order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to clarify his claims on January 28, 2021. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff states that at the time of the alleged incidents he “wasn’t facing any charges was a free American citizen.” Id. at p. 3. When asked to provide the date of his conviction or probation or parole revocation he states “March, 2018.” Id.

1The Arkansas Department of Correction was reorganized in 2019 to become the Arkansas Department of Corrections. The new Department is a Cabinet level department within the Arkansas State Government which includes the Division of Correction and the Division of Community Correction. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants in the Amended Complaint: Guy Hughes and Justin Dubose — detectives with the Crossett Police Department, and David Cason and Thomas Dean — Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys in Monticello, Arkansas. (ECF No. 6, pp. 2- 3). Plaintiff asserts three claims and is suing Defendants in their official capacities. He is seeking

compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at pp. 4-7. Plaintiff describes Claim One as “my Constitutional rights were violated Admendment 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14.” (ECF No. 6, p. 4). He alleges that on March 1, 2018, all Defendants “wrongfully accused, detained and prosecuted for a crime [Plainitff] did not commit.” Id. He describes his official capacity claim as, “I was accused, unlawfully detained and maliciously prosecuted.” Id. at p. 5. Plaintiff describes Claim Two as “my human rights was violated. Article 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11(2), 12, Article 25(1), 27.” (ECF No. 6, p. 5). He alleges on March 1, 2018, all Defendants deprived him of “[his] freedom and pursuit of happiness as well as [his] liberties.” Id. Plaintiff goes on to specifically describes his official capacity claim, stating, “I was detained 1 year and 6

months. I was forced out of my liberties all stemming from improper investigations.” Id. at p. 6. In Claim Three Plaintiff states, “I claim that my Civil Rights were violated. / Redress /.” (ECF No. 6, p. 6). He alleges all Defendants violated his “right to equal treatment under the law. . . .” Id. Plaintiff describes his official capacity claim against the Defendants as “liberties guaranteed to all individuals by law, custom, etc. Rights caused the violation.” Id. at p. 7. II. APPLICABLE LAW 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)). However, a pro se plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. See Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). III. DISCUSSION Defendants Hughes and Dubose are identified by Plaintiff as Detectives with the Crossett Police Department who investigated Plaintiff in 2018. Plaintiff describes Defendants Cason and

Deen as Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys employed by the “Office of Prosecuting Attorney” in Monticello, Arkansas, who were involved in pursuing criminal charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to allege plausible official capacity claims against any of the Defendants. Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home,

(8th Cir. 2010). In this case, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Hughes and Dubose are treated as claims against the City of Crossett, Arkansas. His claims against Defendants Cason and Dean are treated as claims against Monticello, Arkansas. See Murray v. Lene,

(8th Cir. 2010). “[I]t is well established that a municipality [or county] cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo.,

(8th Cir. 2013). To establish municipal liability under section 1983, “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to an

official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle v. Anderson,

(8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Plaintiff fails to identify any custom, policy, or practice of the City of Crossett, or the City of Monticello which violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims should be dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This dismissal of this case constitutes a strike pursuant to

(g). The Clerk is DIRECTED to place a § 1915 strike flag on the case. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of April, 2021. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge