IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CODY S. HOWARD PLAINTIFF #79081

V. CASE NO. 4:22-cv-01091 JM

RAINWATER, Lawyer at Rainwater Holt & Sexton; SEXTON, Lawyer at Rainwater Holt & Sexton DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Cody Howard, in custody at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, has filed a pro se complaint under

(Doc. 2) and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). Howard has not filed a properly completed in forma pauperis petition. (Doc. 5).1 However, because a district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to state a claim, Howard’s IFP (Doc. 1) is denied as moot and his complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See Smith v. Boyd,

(8th Cir. 1991). Howard states that, in either 2016 or 2017, he was notified by the law offices of Rainwater, Holt & Sexton that a trust had been created for him from which his health care expenses could be paid. (Doc. 2 at 4). Howard brings this lawsuit under

arguing that Defendants have since failed to represent him. It appears Howard believed the firm would thereafter represent him personally rather than simply serving as a conduit for trust business. Howard asks the Court to reward him “what rightfully belongs to [him].” (Id. at 5).

1 Howard has submitted a letter to the Court (Doc. 7) that he has been unable to obtained a certified copy of his trust fund account statement as required by

(a)(2). Howard’s claims fail for a number of reasons. In order to state a claim for relief under § 1983, the complaint must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federally protected statutory right. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

(1999). First, Howard has not asserted a constitutional right. Whether Defendants are unlawfully withholding trust assets is a state law issue. Second, even if Howard had alleged a constitutional claim, neither Defendant nor their law firm are private actors subject to suit under § 1983. Finally, to the extent Howard’s claims arose from a 2016-2017 case, those claims would now be barred by the three year statute of limitations governing § 1983 actions. See Miller v. Norris,

, 739 (8th Cir. 2001). Howard’s Complaint (Doc. 2) is dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2022. OE merase