# Marshall v. Brown

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · October 25, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10007138

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 25, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10007138

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10007138. Public record. Not legal advice.