Gardner v. Hecht

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION JAVON HENRY GARDNER PLAINTIFF ADC #141217 V. No. 3:22-CV-00061-DPM-JTR MATTHEW HECHT, Detention Officer, Green County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Javon Henry Gardner (“Gardner”), a convicted prisoner in the Greene County Detention Center (“GCDC”), filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 2. Before Gardner may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.1 Gardner alleges that, on January 24, 2022, Defendant Lieutenant Felisha Rowland (“Rowland”) came into his barrack “telling all inmates there was a lot of trading happening inside the barracks.” Doc. 2 at 4. Gardner alleges he tried explaining to Rowland “that inmates were only sharing with inmates that didn’t have anything,” but Rowland dismissed the explanation. Id. When Gardner attempted to 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). elaborate, she said she was not going to argue with him and slammed the barrack’s door closed. Id. A few minutes later, Gardner alleges he was told to “pack his property,” which he understood to mean he was going to be placed in punitive segregation. Id. at 4-5.

Shortly thereafter, Defendant Matthew Hecht (“Hecht”) opened the door and “pointed the pepper-ball riot firearm at [him] … stating: “Pack your property or get shot with pepper-balls.” Id. at 5. When Gardner asked what he had done, he was told: “You were arguing with an officer.” Id. After asking Hecht to turn his body camera on, Gardner alleges he turned and placed his hands on the wall, at which time “Hecht over-aggressively restrained [his] wrists in hand-cuffs and jacked his arms up behind him.” Id. Gardner alleges that Defendant Dane Barnum (“Barnum”) was with Hecht but failed to intervene, even as Hecht “r[a]n [Gardner] into the wall,” before escorting him from the barracks to a punitive segregation cell. Id. According to Gardner, Hecht led him into a segregation cell, then “aggressively slammed [him] on the floor while holding onto [his] cuffed writs, causing [him] wrist and elbow pain.” Id. at 6. Again, Gardner alleges, Barnum witnessed this interaction, and “allowed [it] to take place.” Id. For the next several days, Gardner alleges that Hecht repeatedly approached his cell and point the “pepper-ball firearm” at him, without cause. /d. Gardner believes Hecht did this for racially discriminatory reasons. /d. at 7.

For screening purposes only, the Court concludes that Gardner has stated a viable excessive force claim against Hecht and a viable failure to intervene claim against Barnum. Accordingly, the Court will direct service on each of them.’

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: l. Gardner be ALLOWED TO PROCEED with his excessive force claim against Hecht and his failure to intervene claim against Barnum.

2. The Clerk is directed to issue a summons for Hecht and Barnum. The United States Marshal is directed to serve the summons, Complaint, and this Order, on each of them, at the Greene County Detention Center.

DATED this 7" day of October, 2022.

aN ED SST GISTRATT JUDGE ? Gardner’s discrimination claim against Hecht and his First Amendment claim against Rowland will be addressed by separate Recommendation. > Tf any Defendant is no longer an Greene County employee, the individual responding to service must provide a sealed statement with the unserved Defendant’s last known mailing address.