The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
LONNIE RAY GILBERT, JR., PLAINTIFF
# 187378
v. 4:23CV00838-BRW-JTK
PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL
DETENTION FACILITY, et al. DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy
Roy Wilson. Any party may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If
you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your
objections; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this
Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
DISPOSITION
I. Introduction
Lonnie Ray Gilbert (“Plaintiff”) is in custody at the Pulaski County, Arkansas, Detention
Center. He filed a pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5). The Court screened Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and found that Plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff was given the
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies in his pleading. (Id.) Plaintiff
filed his Amended Complaint on November 3, 2023. (Doc. No. 11). The Court will continue
screening Plaintiff’s claims.
II. Screening
The PLRA 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 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).
An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing
pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent,
780 F .2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).
An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must
give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts
alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
III. Discussion
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sued Sergeants Lambert and Jones (collectively,
“Defendants”) in their personal and official capacities. (Doc. No. 11 at 1-2). Plaintiff’s
statement of claim reads, in its entirety:
I have COPD. I was [brought] to jail in mid July the end of July beginning of Aug
09-23 I began getting on the keyso letting them medical know that I was having a
hard time breathing because of my COPD in A unit 7-29-23 I got on the keyso and
let medical know I need a updraft treatment for my breathing they say I was
scheduled to be seen on sick call on 8-1-23 I still hadn’t been seen on 8-18-2023
by that time I was already in hospital but on 8-09-23 I complained to medical I can’t
stop choking need to see a doctor asap. On 8-5-23 I put in complaint to medical I
think I have Covid. 8-18-23 still had been seen by any medical from the facility.
8-01-23 told them I was having bad kidney pains they stated again I was scheduled
to see the nurse 8-15-23 I when I was admitted to hospital due to lungs collapse and
liver and kidney shut down.
(Id. at 4).
Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 5).
A. Detention Center Not Subject to Suit Under § 1983
In his original Complaint, Plaintiff brought claims against the Pulaski County Detention
Center. Plaintiff did not name the Detention Center as a Defendant in his Amended Compliant.
(Doc. No. 11). “An amended complaint ‘ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no
legal effect.’” In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 101 F.3d 600, 603 (8th
Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). As such, there are no claims currently pending against the
Detention Center. Further, any claims against the Detention Center would fail because the
Detention Center is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Da La Garza v.
Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, Corr. Inst., 18 F. App’x 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001).
B. Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff sued Defendants in their personal and official capacities. “A suit against a
government officer in his official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing
governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants are the equivalent of claims
against Pulaski County.
To establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must prove that an official municipal policy,
deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise, or unofficial custom caused the constitutional
injury. Corwin v. City of Independence, Missouri, 829 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing
Monnell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489
U.S. 378, 389 (1989)). Plaintiff has not alleged that a policy or custom was the driving force
behind the alleged violation of his rights. As such, Plaintiff cannot establish liability against
Pulaski County.
C. Personal Capacity Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
“Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged
deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). “Because
vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-
official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(2009)). Bare allegations void of factual enhancement are insufficient to state a claim for relief
under § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When the Court gave Plaintiff the chance to file an Amended Complaint, the Court advised
Plaintiff that he should “provide specific facts against each named Defendant in a simple, concise,
and direct manner, including dates, times, and places if possible.” (Doc. No. 7 at 4). Despite
this guidance, Plaintiff named Lambert and Jones as Defendants, but made no allegations of fact
against them. Instead, in his statement of claim Plaintiff refers to “medical,” “they,” and “them.”
Considering these allegations, the Court cannot identify any allegedly unlawful acts or omissions
by either Defendant Lambert or Defendant Jones. As such, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against
Defendants on which relief may be granted.
IV. Conclusion
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
2. The Court recommend! that this dismissal count as a “strike” for purposes of
28 US.C. § 1915(g).?
3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and accompanying Judgment would not
be taken in good faith.
Dated this 8 day of November, 2023. ( /
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
‘ The number of strikes a plaintiff has accrued may be determined only by looking
backwards to past dismissals; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) leaves the effective decision to the later tribunal.
Gonzalez v. United States, 23 F. 4th 788, 789-91 (8th Cir. 2022).
2 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides as follows: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil
action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”