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

DANIEL OWENS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00316 JM

TERESA FRANKLIN and LAUREN OWENS DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Daniel Owens was detained at the Poinsett County Detention Facility when he initiated this action pro se pursuant to

. (Doc. 2). He has since notified the Court that he was released from detention and updated his address. (Doc. 11). Owens has also amended his complaint to sue Legal Aid Attorney Teresa Franklin and his ex-wife Lauren Owens.1 (Doc. 6). His amended complaint must be screened. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I. In Forma Pauperis Application The Court’s previous denial of Owens’s free-world motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) is VACATED, and the motion (Doc. 1) is now GRANTED. See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

(8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under

(a)). He reports no income and three dependents. (Doc. 1). Owen’s prison applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9-10) are DENIED as MOOT. II. Screening Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints,

(e), and prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee,

1 An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint making it a legal nullity. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to terminate Judge Cindy Thyer as a named defendant as she is not named in the amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages should be dismissed before the defendants are served.

(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 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(b). The in forma pauperis statute also imposes these standards for dismissal.

(e)(2)(B). III. Background In his amended complaint, Owens challenges details of his divorce decree. (Doc. 6 at 4). He argues that the papers he signed to secure his divorce have since been tampered with and challenges the truth of details of the decree such as the date of separation and ordered child support. (Id.). He asks that the papers be returned to their original form and also asks for custody of his

children. (Id. at 5). Owens’s claims fail for a number of reasons. First, Owens cannot relitigate divorce and custody issues in federal court. Kahn v. Kahn,

(8th Cir. 1994). Second, even if he could, he has not asserted a § 1983 claim. 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). Not only has Owens not asserted a constitutional right, but both Franklin

and Owens are private actors not subject to suit under § 1983. IV. Conclusion 1. Owens’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 2. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2023. NUE JUDGE