# Brown v. Higgins

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · November 28, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10007224

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 28, 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/10007224

## Opinion text

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

WILBUR BROWN, JR. PLAINTIFF
#102216

V. NO. 4:22-cv-00929-JM

HIGGINS, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Paul Criswell, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”),
filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and 45 other inmates,
including Plaintiff Wilbur Brown, Jr. Doc. 1. Pursuant to Court policy, the Court opened 46
different lawsuits, including this one for Mr. Brown.
In the original complaint, Mr. Criswell alleges that: (1) the conditions of his confinement
were unconstitutional; (2) Detention Center staff interfered with the inmates’ right to practice their
religion; and (3) Detention Center staff denied inmates showers, outdoor recreation, access to mail,
and access to the law library. The original complaint includes no allegations about how the named
Defendants violated Mr. Brown’s constitutional rights, which is the only issue in this lawsuit.
Therefore, on October 24, 2022, the Court postponed the screening process mandated by
28 U.S.C. § 1915A1 to provide Mr. Brown 30 days to file an amended complaint clarifying his
constitutional claims. Doc. 4.

1 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).
In its previous Order, the Court instructed Mr. Brown that, if he filed an amended
complaint, he should specifically: (1) include only those constitutional claims arising from the
same transaction or occurrence; (2) identify and name as Defendants those individuals who
personally violated his constitutional rights; and (2) explain the injury he suffered as a result of
each Defendant’s unconstitutional conduct. The Court explained that Mr. Brown can proceed only

on the alleged constitutional violations he personally experienced. In a prisoner civil rights action,
he may not assert claims on behalf of others. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.3d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985) (“A prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (parties
must “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel”). Finally, the Court cautioned
Mr. Brown that, if he failed to file an amended complaint, the Court would have to screen the
original complaint, which would likely result in the dismissal of this lawsuit.
To date, Mr. Brown has not filed an amended complaint, and the time for doing so has
passed. Accordingly, the Court must screen the claims raised in the original complaint. Based on
the allegations in the original complaint, Mr. Brown has failed to state a plausible claim that his

constitutional rights have been violated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court withdraws the reference
2. Mr. Brown’s complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
3. The Court recommends that, in the future, this dismissal be considered a “strike”
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal
would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
4. The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2022.
UNITED bore ‘ JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10007224. Public record. Not legal advice.