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 City of Texarkana,
Arkansas (“Texarkana, Arkansas”) and Officer Tanner Freeman (“Freeman” or “Officer Freeman”).
ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed a response to this motion. ECF No. 16. 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. 10), of Texarkana, Arkansas, and Freeman, 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 Officer Darren Jones arrested
the Plaintiff’s son, Demetrius Stanley. ECF No. 1. This arrest followed a traffic stop conducted by
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.
Defendants Texarkana, Arkansas, and Freeman 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,
qualified immunity for Officer Freeman, and failure to state plausible claim for municipal liability
against Texarkana, Arkansas. ECF. No. 10. Plaintiff responded to this motion. ECF No. 16.
Because this court finds Plaintiff lacks standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to bring this suit, only
this ground will be addressed in the Report and Recommendation.
2. Discussion
Because the Plaintiff is 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, 2016. Plaintiff has not pled a single contact with
Texarkana, Arkansas or Officer Freeman 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.
3. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends that Defendants The City of Texarkana,
Arkansas and Officer Tanner Freeman, Motion To Dismiss, (ECF No. 10) 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