The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
LEONARD ELLIS SPARKS, PLAINTIFF
v. 3:24CV00053-DPM-JTK
CROSS COUNTY JAIL, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Leonard Ellis Sparks (“Plaintiff”) is in custody at the Cross County Detention Center. He
filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Motion”), which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 1-3). The Court must screen Plaintiff’s claims
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and in forma pauperis statute.
I. 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). See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) (screening requirements).
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).
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff sued the Cross County Detention Center along with Detention Center Supervisor
Arleen Clements and unidentified Jail officials in their official capacities only. (Doc. No. 2 at 1-
2). Plaintiff indicated that he was in jail awaiting trial on pending criminal charges at the time of
the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit. (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff complained of chest pains for three days. (Id. at 4). Cam put Plaintiff in ISO;
Cam and Tex told Plaintiff to “suffer it out.” (Id.).
Plaintiff suffers from lung, throat, and colon cancer. (Id.). Plaintiff informed C.O. Matt
about appointments for two surgeries. (Id.). C.O. Matt told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was not going
to make the appointments. (Doc. No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff also missed doctor appointments and
surgeries that may have saved his life. (Id.). He says this was “[b]y Arleen Clements.” (Id.).
A nurse Malorie will not give Plaintiff his medications for his sleep disorders, though she
gives other inmates three a day. (Id.).
Plaintiff was placed in ISO for 56 days when he arrived at the Jail because “they” said he
had a sexually transmitted disease and could not be around other detainees. (Id. at 5). Cam,
nurse Malorie, and C.O. Matt told Plaintiff they had to wait for his blood work to come back.
(Id.). Plaintiff claims this is a lie because no blood was drawn. (Doc. No. 2 at 5). Plaintiff adds
that he has mental issues and is not receiving care for those issues. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks damages
and injunctive relief. (Id. at 6).
B. Detention Center Not a Person Subject to Suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff sued the Cross County Jail. But the Jail is not a “person” subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Da La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, Corr. Inst., 18 F. App’x 436, 437 (8th
Cir. 2001). Any allegations against the Jail fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
C. Official Capacity Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacities are the equivalent
of claims against Cross County. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
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
Monell 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 pled that a policy, practice, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or
supervise was the driving force behind the alleged violation of his rights. As such, Plaintiff’s
Complaint as currently pled fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff will be given the chance to file a superseding Amended Complaint to cure the
defects in his pleading.
D. Amended Complaint
Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the defects explained above. If Plaintiff
decides to amend, Plaintiff should submit to the Court, within thirty (30) days of the entry date of
this Order, a superseding Amended Complaint that contains in a single document his claims against
all Defendants he is suing. Plaintiff is cautioned that an Amended Complaint renders his original
Complaint without legal effect. Only claims properly set out in the Amended Complaint will be
allowed to proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should: 1) name each party he
believes deprived him of his constitutional rights and whom he wishes to sue in this action;
2) provide specific facts against each named Defendant in a simple, concise, and direct
manner, including dates, times, and places if possible; 3) indicate whether he is suing each
Defendant in his/her individual or official capacity, or in both capacities; 4) explain the
reasons for an official capacity claim, if he makes one; 5) explain how each defendant’s
actions harmed him personally; 6) explain the relief he seeks; and 7) otherwise cure the
defects explained above and set out viable claims.
If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I will recommend that his Original
Complaint be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2).
III. Conclusion
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. If Plaintiff wishes to submit an Amended Complaint for the Court’s review, he must
file the Amended Complaint consistent with the above instructions within thirty (30) days from
the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I will recommend that
certain claims in his Original Complaint be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); Loc. R.
5.5(c)(2).
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Complaint form.
Dated this 2" day of April, 2024.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE