The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
CODY TYLER PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00040 JM
CINDY THYER, Circuit Judge,
Poinsett County; CHARLES ROBERTS,
Public Defender, Poinsett County; DOES,
Poinsett County Court System DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Cody Tyler in custody at the Poinsett County Detention Center, filed a pro se
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). He also filed an application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). Because Tyler makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED. His Complaint,
however, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Because Tyler has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is granted. An initial
filing fee of $8.17 will be assessed. After payment of the initial filing fee, Tyler’s custodian shall
withdraw monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income
credited to his account each time the account exceeds $10 until the statutory fee has been paid in
full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Tyler’s custodian must send those payments to the Clerk until a total
of $350 has been paid. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Administrator of
the Poinsett County Detention Center, 1500 Justice Dr., Harrisburg, Arkansas 72432. Payments
are to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Court with Tyler’s name and case number clearly identified.
II. Screening
Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
and prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for
relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages should be
dismissed before the defendants are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007), the Court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level,” Id. (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). A complaint must contain enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept.
of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
III. Discussion
Tyler brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). He sues Circuit Judge Cindy Thyer,
Public Defender Charles Roberts, and the Poinsett County Court System. (Doc. 2). Tyler says
that, despite appearing on December 28, 2022, for court, his name was not called. (Doc. 2 at 4).
He complains that “no one will tell [him] when [his] next court date” is set. (Id.). Tyler asks to be
told when his court date will be reset.
Tyler’s claims are dismissed against Judge Thyer because she is absolutely immune from
suit for actions she took in her judicial role. Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994).
And, nothing in the complaint establishes that Judge Thyer has acted outside of her judicial
capacity or absent jurisdiction. Hamilton v. City of Hayti, Mo., 948 F.3d 921, 925 (8th Cir. 2020).
Additionally, no constitutional claims exist against Roberts because public defenders do not act
“under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983.” Polk County v. Dodson, 545 US. 312,
321 (1981). Finally, the Poinsett County Court System is not an entity that can be sued. Harris v.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 787 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1986).
IV. Conclusion
Tyler’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. This Court certifies that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order and accompanying
Judgment is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2023.
GU