Buford v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

STEPHEN LOUIS SHERMOND BUFORD PLAINTIFF

ADC #116840

V. NO. 4:22-cv-01212-LPR-ERE

RODNEY D. BROWN, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Stephen Louis Shermond Buford, an Arkansas Division of

Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc.

2. In his original complaint, Mr. Buford alleged that, on February 28, 2022: (1)

Sergeant Brandon Higgins and Lieutenant Lorrenetta Smith confiscated his personal

property; (2) Sergeant Higgins used derogatory language and called him racist

names; and (3) Captain Rodney Brown and Lieutenant John Martin used excessive

force against him. In addition, Mr. Buford explained that, for the three or four days

following the February 28, 2022 incident, unidentified ADC staff members: (1)

failed to provide him medical care; (2) turned off the water in his cell; and (3)

confiscated his mattress and blanket.

In a December 7, 2022 Order, the Court explained that, while Mr. Buford

stated excessive force claims against Defendants Brown and Martin, it was unclear

whether Mr. Buford also sought to proceed on a related medical deliberate-

indifference claim against unidentified ADC staff members. Accordingly, the Court

postponed the screening process mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A1 to give Mr.

Buford an opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims. Doc. 4.

Mr. Buford has now filed an amended complaint. Doc. 7.

In his amended complaint, Mr. Buford identifies Nurse Sharon Rollans as a

Defendant and explains that she failed to provide him medical treatment following

the underlying incident. In addition, Mr. Buford: (1) complains that Defendants

Brown and Martin failed to provide him medical treatment following the incident;

and (2) abandons his claims against Sergeant Brandon Higgins and Lieutenant

Lorrenetta Smith by failing to identify them as Defendants.2

For screening purposes, Mr. Buford has stated: (1) an excessive force claim

against Defendants Rodney D. Brown and John Martin; and (2) medical deliberate

indifference claims against Defendants Brown, Martin, and Sharon Rollans. The

Court previously issued service for Mr. Buford’s excessive force claims against

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints,

and to dismiss any 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(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept

the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider 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).

2 The Court previously warned Mr. Buford that an amended complaint would supersede

the original complaint. Doc. 4 at 3 (citing In re Atlas Lines, Inc. 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.

2000) (an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint

without legal effect)).

Defendants Brown and Martin.? The Court now will issue service for Mr. Buford’s

medical deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Sharon Rollans.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk is instructed to prepare a summons for Defendant Sharon

Rollans.

2. The United States Marshal is directed to serve Defendant Rollans with

a summons and a copy of the complaint and the amended complaint (with any

attachments) (Docs. 2,7), without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security.

Service for Defendant Rollans should be attempted through Humphries, Odom, &

Eubanks, 1901 Broadway Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206.

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

MiG

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

> The Court previously recommended that Mr. Buford’s claim that Defendants Brown and

Martin violated his constitutional rights by allowing him to be housed in a cell without running

water, a mattress or blanket for three days be dismissed based on his failure to state a plausible

constitutional claim for relief. Doc. 8.