Opinion

Rasheed v. Texarkana, Arkansas, City of

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Jan 19, 2018
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.2%

The opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BASIL ABDUL RASHEED, JR. PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 4:17-cv-04057

CITY OF TEXARKANA,

ARKANSAS, et al DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before this Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by Defendants Sheriff Jackie Runion

(“Runion”) and Warden Jeffie Walker (“Walker”). ECF No. 28. Plaintiff filed a response to this

motion. ECF No. 34. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), the

Honorable P. K. Holmes, III referred this motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and

recommendation. On January 10, 2018, a hearing was held on this Motion. All Defendants appeared

through counsel. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, also appeared. The Court, having reviewed the

parties’ arguments and briefing, recommends the Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 28) of Runion and

Walker be GRANTED.

1. Background

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against several parties. ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff’s claims relate to a traffic stop involving his son, Demetrius Stanley. The limited facts

alleged in the Complaint state that on March 27, 2016, Co-Defendant Jones arrested the Plaintiff’s

son, Demetrius Stanley. ECF No. 1. This arrest followed a traffic stop conducted by Co-Defendant

Officer Freeman for expired car registration. Id. Following the stop, it was confirmed that Demetrius

Stanley had an outstanding warrant for a parole violation out of Bowie County, Texas. Id. The traffic

stop and arrest occurred at the intersection of St. Michael Drive and State Line Avenue in Texarkana,

Texas. Id. Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no allegation he was present during the traffic stop and arrest

on March 27, 2016. Additionally, Plaintiff, at the hearing held on January 10, 2018, acknowledged

he was not present at the time of the traffic stop and arrest of Demetrius Stanley.

Plaintiff, appears to make a claim against only these two defendants alleging he is unable to

send mail to his son while incarcerated in the Miller County Arkansas Jail.

Defendants Runion and Walker filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for

lack of standing, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and based on

qualified immunity for Runion and Walker. ECF. No. 28. Plaintiff responded to this motion. ECF

No. 34. Because this court finds Plaintiff lacks standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to bring this

suit, and because of qualified immunity, only these grounds will be addressed in the Report and

Recommendation.

2. Discussion

Because the Plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the Court has liberally construed his complaint.

However, the Plaintiff must still allege sufficient facts to support his claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364

F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).

Standing is a necessary component of the jurisdiction of an Article III court, which exists to

resolve cases or controversies. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830

(1973). If a Plaintiff lacks standing, the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction. Friedmann

v. Sheldon Cmty. Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 802, 804 (8th Cir.1993). To establish standing, the Plaintiff

must demonstrate: (1) he suffered an injury in fact which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)

actual and imminent; (2) a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the alleged

injury; and, (3) it must be likely, as opposed to speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a

favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560- 561 (1992).

All of Plaintiff’s claims relate to a traffic stop involving his son, Demetrius Stanley. Plaintiff

was not involved, nor even present, at the time of the traffic stop. Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no

allegation showing he was in any way stopped, detained, touched, arrested or effected in any way by

the traffic stop which occurred on March 27, 2106. Plaintiff has not pled a single contact with Runion

or Walker related to the March 27, 2016 traffic stop. Plaintiff’s position at the hearing on this Motion

was simply that he “had the right to defend his son.” Plaintiff has failed to allege any injury he

suffered related to the March 27, 2016 traffic stop.

Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action and, consequently

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's claims as it relates to the traffic stop

which occurred on March 27, 2016.

Plaintiff also seems to allege he is unable to send mail to his son while he is being held at the

Miller County Arkansas Jail. During the hearing, Plaintiff stated he was not able to send mail in an

envelope, but was allowed to send post cards to his son. Even assuming Plaintiff has standing to bring

this claim, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity serves to shield a governmental official from prosecution and liability

based on the performance of discretionary duties. Government officials are immune from civil rights

claims brought under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a

reasonably objective party would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgeral, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1882).

Recently, the Eighth Circuit has held a postcard-only incoming-mail policy is constitutional. Simpson

v. County of Cape Girardeau, 2018 WL 258744 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018) Accordingly, Defendants

Runion and Walker have not violated any clearly established constitutional right by requiring

incoming mail to be on post cards. To the contrary, this policy is clearly constitutional.

3. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends that Defendant Sheriff Jackie Runion and

Warden Jeffie Walker Motion To Dismiss, (ECF No. 28) be GRANTED.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).

ENTERED this 19th day of January 2018.

s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.