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

CLINTELL COTHRAN, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00094-JM

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DEFENDANT

ORDER Clintell Cothran’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is granted. He reports living on social security disability income. Cothran’s complaint is subject to screening. See

(e)(2). Cothran sues the Arkansas Department of Human Services (“ADHS”) alleging that it has allowed money intended for the Arkansas Rent Relief Program to be fraudulently distributed. Doc. 2 at 4. Cothran seeks $400,000,000,000 in damages.

Cothran’s complaint fails to state a claim because he does not offer sufficient facts to explain why he is entitled to relief he seeks. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Even if Cothran’s complaint properly stated a claim, dismissal would still be appropriate because he does not state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, which is necessary for a case to proceed in federal court. There is no federal question because Cothran does not point to a constitutional provision, federal law, or treaty. See

. Additionally, the relief he seeks is unavailable. Official capacity claims against state agencies are equivalent to claims against the State of Arkansas. Monroe v. Arkansas State Univ.,

(8th Cir. 2007) (the State and its agencies are immune from suit). Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,

(1989). Moreover, although state officials may be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, a state agency cannot. Monroe,

. As a result, ADHS is a state agency that is immune from suit. /d.; see also Nelson v. Arkansas Crime Info. Ctr., No. 4:18-cv-4142 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 8, 2019),

, at *2. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice, and an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith.

(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2023. QML cr