Henry v. Franks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY HENRY PLAINTIFF

v. No: 3:22-cv-00186-BRW-PSH

STEVE FRANKS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Rodney Henry, a pretrial detainee held at the Greene County

Detention facility, initiated this lawsuit by filing a pro se complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on July 21, 2022 (Doc. No. 2). Henry’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis has been granted (Doc. No. 3).

Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court

must review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if

it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Henry alleges that he was denied due process related

to two disciplinaries, resulting in his placement in punitive segregation in May 2021

for 30 days and in October 2021 for 60 days. Doc. No. 2 at 4-5.

The Court needs additional information in order to screen Henry’s complaint.

First, Henry must clearly describe each named defendant’s involvement in the

violation of his rights. A defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he

was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for the constitutional

violation. See Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Liability

under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the

deprivation of rights.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally,

participation in the administrative grievance process alone is insufficient to establish

liability under § 1983. See Rowe v. Norris, 198 F. App’x 579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006).

Second, Henry must explain how his claims are factually related. Under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 18, a plaintiff may bring multiple claims, related or not, against a single

defendant. To proceed against multiple defendants, plaintiff must satisfy Fed. R.

Civ. P. 20, which allows claims against multiple defendants when the claims against

them arise out of the same series of occurrences, and present questions of fact

common to all defendants.1

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank § 1983 complaint form to Henry.

Henry is cautioned that an amended complaint renders his original complaint

without legal effect; only claims properly set out in the amended complaint will be

1 See Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974) (Rule 20

permits “all reasonably related claims for relief by or against different parties to be tried

in a single proceeding.”); see also Fulghum v. Allen, 2015 WL 5667479 at *1 (8th Cir.

2015); Harris v. Union Pacific R. Co., 2013 WL 1187719 (E.D. Ark. 2013); Langrell v.

Union Pacific R. Co., 2012 WL 3041312 (E.D. Ark. 2012).

allowed to proceed. In the event he fails to file an amended complaint conforming

to this order within 30 days, the Court may dismiss this case.

Henry’s “Motion to Seek Help” (Doc. No. 6) is denied. It is not clear how the

allegations Henry makes in this motion are related to his claims in this case; they

appear to be based on more recent events. To bring claims based on more recent

events, Henry must file a new lawsuit after exhausting his available administrative

remedies. Additionally, the only relief he seeks is transfer to another jail. The Court

does not interject itself into prison administration and cannot award injunctive relief

without a proper motion.”

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2022.

UNITED STATES 6 STRATE JUDGE

? The granting of injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, particularly in a

prison context. See Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1995). In considering whether

to grant such relief, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the threat of

irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the

injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability

that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. See Dataphase

Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981). “The burden of proving

that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant.” Goff, 60

F.3d at 519-521 (citing Modern Computer Systems v. Modern Banking Systems, 871 F.2d

734, 737 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc)).