Bailey v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ANDREW PHILLIP BAILEY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:20-cv-02233

SHERIFF RON BROWN DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to

screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on December 11, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Also on

December 11, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

(ECF No. 3). In addition, the Court’s Order terminated the Crawford County Detention Center,

the Medical Staff, and the Tiger Commissary as Defendants to this action. (ECF No. 3). Crawford

County Sheriff Ron Brown remains a Defendant to this action. (ECF No. 1, 3). Brown is being

sued in both his official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 1).

According to his Complaint, Plaintiff is currently in the Crawford County Detention Center

due to an “ADC Parole violation revocation.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). In Plaintiff’s first claim he states:

“I am being billed for medical at $50 a visit while I am ADC committed and they should be billing

ADC.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff notes the “date of occurrence” as “4/29/2017 5/24/2017.” Id.

Plaintiff states “it’s ADC [r]esponsibility to pay for these medical cost & not mine.” Id. In

Plaintiff’s second claim he states “[b]eing billed by Crawford County Detention Center / Tiger

Commissary for indigent state issuance.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff lists several dates in 2017 as

the “date of the occurrence” and states “I still have a bill from 2017 to where they are taking a

percentage of my money due to the county billing me for being indigent.” (ECF No. 1 at 5).

Plaintiff further states “[m]yself being indigent and being billed for it. Now every time money is

deposited on my account they are taking a percentage of it therefore that’s stealing money from

me, cause, I still have a bill due to being charged for indigent supplies.” (ECF No. 1 at 6).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages: “$5,000 due to the time & efforts and

a fine for the misconduct of their abuse of power & to be paid back any and all of the amounts

they have taken from me & to compensate all fees on my part due to their misconduct of me having

to file this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 1 at 6).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being

issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

does not allege “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 evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted

sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,

541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff

must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337

(8th Cir. 1985).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. In Plaintiff’s first claim, he

contends he was wrongfully billed for medical expenses. He claims that the medical expenses

should have been billed to the Arkansas Department of Corrections instead since “its ADC

[r]esponsibility to pay for these medical cost & not mine.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). In his second claim,

he claims he was billed for indigent commissary expenses. (ECF No. 1). There is no constitutional

right to commissary items at no cost. Tokar v. Armontrout, 97 F.3d 1078, 1083 (8th Cir. 1996).

Further, although prison officials are under a constitutional duty to provide medical treatment to a

prisoner when needed, it is constitutionally permissible for a detention center to charge a detainee

the cost of medical care. Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 1999); cf. Jensen v.

Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1183 (8th Cir. 1981) (no basis for due process claim where deductions

from prisoner accounts were assessments for value received); Beck v. Richards, Case No. 4:16-

CV-00495 KGB, 2017 WL 3326969, at *5 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2017) (no violation of inmate’s

constitutional rights to present him with the bill for his treatment at the county hospital emergency

room).

In Garcia v. Lappin, No. 06-C-94-C, 2006 WL 897857, *3 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2006), the

court aptly stated:

Nothing in the Eighth Amendment requires the government to provide at no cost a

commodity that would not be free outside the prison and that the inmate has the

legal means to purchase. If a prison official withholds necessary medical care from

an inmate with a serious medical need who cannot afford to pay, the official’s action

would violate the inmate’s constitutional rights, but insisting that an inmate with

sufficient funds to pay for his own medical care is neither deliberate indifference

nor punishment.

Id. at *10.

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied medical care. Instead, he challenges the

fact that he is being asked to pay for the medical care and commissary items he received. This

does not state a claim of constitutional dimension. If the Plaintiff believes that money was

improperly deducted from his account, he can seek relief through state law remedies such as an

action in replevin or conversion.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January 2021.

/s/ P. K. Holmes, III

HON. P. K. HOLMES, III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE