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

LEONARD ELLIS SPARKS, PLAINTIFF

v. 3:24CV00053-DPM-JTK

CROSS COUNTY JAIL, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Leonard Ellis Sparks (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Copies and a Motion to Amend Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 16, 19). Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of docket entry no. 9 along with a copy of this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff wants to add a claim and a defendant through a supplement to his Amended Complaint. (Id.). “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)). Plaintiff asks to add L.N. Hagler as a defendant to this action. (Doc. No. 19). In his Motion, Plaintiff described unlawful actions in terms of “they” or “her” after referencing several individuals. As such, it is not clear what L.N. Hagler allegedly did to violate Plaintiff’s rights. It is not possible to determine the actions of the other individuals for that same reason. In short, allowing Plaintiff to supplement his Amended Complaint with the allegations in his Motion would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied without prejudice. Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP v. Lewis,

(8th Cir. 2022) (recognizing futility as a ground for denying motion to amend). IT IS SO ORDERED this 9" day of July, 2024. ( /

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE