Opinion

Marshall v. Brown

Court
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.1%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY MARSHALL, JR. PLAINTIFF

#18240

V. NO. 3:22-cv-00273-DPM-ERE

JONATHAN BROWN DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Larry Marshall, Jr., a pre-trial detainee at the Mississippi County

Detention Center (“Detention Center”), filed this federal civil rights lawsuit pro se

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 2. In his complaint, Mr. Marshall alleges that, on April

30, 2022, Officer Jonathan Brown used excessive force against him by throwing him

into a wall and punching him twice in the face. As a result of the incident, Mr.

Marshall was charged and convicted of state law criminal battery.

For screening purposes, Mr. Marshall has stated an excessive force claim

against Defendant Brown. However, for relief, he requests only that “the courts []

prevent future police attacks on inmates, and have my battery charge expunged.” Id.

at 5. The Court cannot provide Mr. Marshall the relief that he seeks. First, Mr.

Marshall asks the court to prevent future police attacks, but “an injunction which

does little or nothing more than order the defendants to obey the law is not specific

enough.” Bennie v. Munn, 822 F.3d 392, 397 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation

omitted). Second, Mr. Marshall does not claim that the state proceedings that

resulted in his battery conviction were illegal or constitutionally invalid, and a

federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to expunge a criminal conviction

“based solely on equitable grounds.” United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855 (8th Cir.

2006). If Mr. Marshall seeks to invalidate his state-court criminal conviction in

federal court, he must file the appropriate habeas corpus petition, only after he has

fully exhausted his state court remedies.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

l. Mr. Marshall has thirty days to file a supplement to his complaint

clarifying the type of relief that he seeks from the Court.

2. If Mr. Marshall fails to file a supplement to his complaint, the Court

will screen his original complaint, which is likely to result in the dismissal of this

case.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

' The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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 a 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).

When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual allegations

contained in the complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.