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

CHRISTOPHER M. BUTLER, PLAINTIFF ADC # 178200

v. 2:23CV00106-JM-JTK

DOES DEFENDANTS

ORDER Christopher M. Butler (“Plaintiff”) is confined in the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”). He filed this pro se action alleging that unidentified Defendants violated his federally protected rights. (Doc. No. 1). The Court now must screen Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). I. Screening 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). See also

(e) (screening requirements). An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F .2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint

the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). II. Facts and Analysis Plaintiff’s Complaint is a compilation of grievances, inmate request forms, other communication between Plaintiff and ADC officials, and a 1-page letter to the Court, among other things. Plaintiff did not identify any Defendant in this action. In December, 2022, Plaintiff requested to be transferred to another unit because another inmate threatened him. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). As of April, 2023 Plaintiff had not been transferred. Plaintiff also complains that he is being denied Class 2 and has not been released on parole.

Plaintiff appears to seek placement in the RSVP program in the Malvern Unit. (Id. at 15, 20). Plaintiff asks the Court to “step in and intervene.” (Id. at 3). Because it is not clear whom Plaintiff is suing for what, his Complaint as currently pled fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to cure the defects in his pleading. If Plaintiff chooses to file an Amended Complaint, he should keep the following information in mind. A. Official Capacity Claims “A suit against a government officer in his official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home,

(8th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, any official capacity damages claims against ADC officials are the equivalent of claims against the state of Arkansas and are barred by Eleventh Amendment. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,

(1989). The Eleventh Amendment does not bar requests for prospective injunctive relief. B. Personal Capacity Claims

“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts,

(8th Cir. 1990). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government- official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Parrish v. Ball,

(8th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009)). Bare allegations void of factual enhancement are insufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. See Iqbal,

. C. Superseding Amended Complaint Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the defects explained above. If Plaintiff decides to amend, Plaintiff should submit to the Court, within thirty (30) days of the entry date of

this Order, a superseding Amended Complaint that contains in a single document his claims against all Defendants he is suing. Plaintiff is cautioned that an Amended Complaint renders his original Complaint without legal effect.1 Only claims properly set out in the Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should: 1) name each party he believes deprived him of his constitutional rights and whom he wishes to sue in this action; 2) provide specific facts against each named Defendant in a simple, concise, and direct manner, including dates, times, and places if possible; 3) indicate whether he is suing each

1 “An amended complaint ‘ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.’” In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,

(8th Cir. 1996), quoting International Controls Corp. v. Vesco,

(2d Cir. 1994) (other citations omitted). Defendant in his/her individual or official capacity, or in both capacities; 4) explain the reasons for an official capacity claim, if he makes one; 5) explain how each defendant’s actions harmed him personally; 6) explain the relief he seeks; and 7) otherwise cure the defects explained above and set out viable claims. If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I may recommend that his original Complaint be dismissed. See

(e)(2); Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2). III. Conclusion IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. If Plaintiff wishes to submit an Amended Complaint for the Court’s review, he must file the Amended Complaint consistent with the above instructions within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I may recommend that his original Complaint be dismissed. See

(e)(2); Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2). 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank

Complaint form. Dated this 19™ day of May, 2023.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE