# Smith v. Tallant

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 16, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10633017

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 16, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10633017

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

CURTIS WAYNE DALE SMITH, JR PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04020-SOH-BAB

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JANA TALLANT;
JOHN OR JANE DOE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF;
JAILER LANDON TOLLETTE;
JAILER JORDAN NIEL; and
JAILER REBECCA CASTLEMAN DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Curtis Wayne Dale Smith, Jr., filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Pursuant to § 1915A(a), 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 and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Motion”) on February 27, 2024. (ECF No. 1, 2). The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion
on the same date. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 6, 2024. (ECF
No. 6). At all times relevant here, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Howard County Detention
1
Center (“HCDC”) as a convicted inmate. Id. at 2.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lists three claims against five Defendants: Jail
Administrator Jana Tallant, Jailer Landon Tollette, Jailer Jordan Niel, Jailer Rebecca Castleman,
and John Doe Jail Administrative Staff. (ECF No. 6). In his Claim One, Plaintiff alleges

Defendants Tallant, Tollette, Niel, and Castleman violated his constitutional rights by denying him
access to the courts and “hindering the use of mail by delaying intercepting or stopping mail.” Id.
at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff claims:
When I was in the County I filed a 1983 lawsuit packet on case name Smith vs. Tallant et
al and case number 4:23-cv-04111 this I stated above leads back to evidence on the Manilla
envelope of the dates which showed that date and days they were sent from the Facility of
Howard County Detention Center (“Sheriff Department”) HCDC Before the Date of the
(Myself) day and date which that amended complaint was due December 18, 2023 But the
Amended Complaint was sent out on December 11, 2023 on Monday But the evidence that
shows that my was sent out on time is December 12, 13, 2023 and that is stated on the
Faculty Forms on secures tablets and how I know Jana Tallant (administrator) Hinder my
Mail I herd my amended complaint was Received January 10, 2024 and that shows with
evidence to support it against her that my mail was hindered, intercepted, delayed or
stopped keeping me from also having proper Access to the Courts. And other evidence
on this day and the dates provided is and should have camera footage of me filing out the
packet and envelope and sending it out through Defendant and witness Rebecca Castleman
twice and being the envelope was stamped by (USPS) and the Mail Carrier is the wife of
the man I was in G-cell with so why wasn’t the mail delivered

Id. at 4-5 (errors in original). Plaintiff asserts this Claim One against Defendants Tallant, Tollette,
Niel, and Castleman in both their induvial and official capacities. Id. For his official capacity
claim, Plaintiff states:
I believe Assisting the use or actually helping to Assist Jana Tallant and the Rest of the Jail
administration staff Hinder, Delay, intercept, or stopping my mail from making it to its
destination by Landon Tollette by bringing it back to the pod/cell which was G-Cell after
being sent out and stamped by (USPS) not only did he help them by doing that he did not
hand it directly back to me he handed my mail back to another inmate while I was in the
shower which could also and did hinder and stopped my mail because I did not get my mail
handed directly back to me.

Id. at 5.
2
In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Tallant and Tollette hindered the use of his
federal and state mail by “stopping, delaying, or intercepting my mail and access to the courts.”
Id. at 6 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff asserts the same facts under Claim Two as he did
in Claim One. Plaintiff also asserts the same facts under his official capacity claim in Claim Two
except he does add Defendants Niel and Tollett to Claim Two. Id. at 7.
In Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Tallant and Castleman violated his
constitutional rights by “[h]indering the use of mail by intercepting, delaying or stopping it and
access to the courts.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff again asserts the same facts but
does add the following regarding Defendant Castleman

Rebecca Castleman also sent it out again on December 18, 2023 at breakfast after being
sent back by the Jail administrator and or [Defendants Neil and Tollette] on the night of
December 17, 2023 Jailer Rebecca Castleman also sent a message on her personal or
mobile phone via text message to ask what the problem was or what was going on with no
reply she said from Jana Tallant but with all the evidence above dates, time, camera footage
witnesses and text message shows the claim stated above.

Id. at 8. The official capacity claim stated in Claim Three is the same as Claim One and Two.
For relief, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages, his record expunged and sealed, real
estate, automobiles, and a business. He also requests Defendants be terminated from their jobs
with Howard County. Id. at 9.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARD
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) seek 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). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be
3
false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather
than to vindicate a cognizable right. In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988); Spencer
v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987). 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 Atl. 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)). However, 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
While Plaintiff lists three separate claims in his Amended Complaint, he is repetitive in his
allegations and only alleges two claims: (1) denial of access to courts; and (2) delay or interference
with mail. Plaintiff alleges each of these claims against all the Defendants in both their individual

and official capacity claims.
A. Access to Courts
First, Plaintiff cannot prevail on an access to courts claim unless he can demonstrate he
suffered prejudice or actual injury because of the prison officials' conduct. See Lewis, 518 U.S.
at 351-2; see also Farver v. Vilches, 155 F.3d 978, 979-80 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Klinger v.
Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 609, 617 (8th Cir. 1997) (to prevail on access-to-courts claim, inmate
must show actual injury or prejudice even if denial of access to library is complete and systematic);
McMaster v. Pung, 984 F.2d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 1993). “To prove a violation of the right of
meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish the state has not provided an opportunity
4
to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner's sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of
law, which resulted in actual injury, that is, the hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably
meritorious underlying legal claim.’” Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation and citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged any injury or prejudice from

the delay of his mail to this Court. Furthermore, the Court notes Plaintiff’s amended complaint,
which he claims was delayed, was accepted, and considered by this Court without any prejudice
to Plaintiff. See Smith v. Tallant, Civil No. 4:23-cv-04111, Doc. No. 8. (W.D. Ark. Jan. 10, 2024).
Accordingly, all three of Plaintiff’s claims for denial of access to the courts must fail as a
matter of law and should be dismissed.
B. Interference with Mail
Next, Plaintiff’s claims regarding the hindering, interfering, or stopping of his mail also
fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff does retain a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to
communicate with those outside the prison through means such as mail. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520, 545 (1979); see also Thornburgh v. Abott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989). However, the

HCDC can limit such communications if the facilities’ limitation policy is reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
As an initial matter, the Plaintiff first must allege the Defendants caused his mail to be
delayed and that delay caused Plaintiff an injury by violating his constitutional rights pursuant to
Section 1983. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendants
acted under color of state law, and that the actor violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured
by the Constitution. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not
suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right under Section 1983. Daniels v.
5
Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). Lastly, Defendants
must have been personally involved and caused the violation alleged. “Liability under section
1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. To establish
personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal

involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” Clemmons
v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128,
1132 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to state that any Defendant caused his mail to be delayed or
“hindered.” To the contrary, Plaintiff states his mail had the stamp of the “USPS,” presumably
the United States Postal Service, on it when it was returned to him. He then uses the date stamp
of the USPS—December 12, 2023—and the receipt date of this Court—January 10, 2023—to
argue the Court should infer the Defendants hindered or delayed his mail. There is no allegation
that any Defendant intentionally delayed, hindered, or interfered with Plaintiff’s mail.
Furthermore, as stated with the access to courts claim, Plaintiff has failed to allege any

injury from the one-time delay. To establish standing to sue, Plaintiff must show he “suffered an
injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action.” Cross v. Fox, 23 F.4th
797, 800 (8th Cir. 2022). The Court must be able to redress the injury suffered by Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff’s mail, while delayed, was eventually received by the Court, and accepted without
prejudice to Plaintiff. See Smith v. Tallant, Civil No. 4:23-cv-04111, Doc. No. 8. (W.D. Ark. Jan.
10, 2024).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s interference with mail claim fails as a matter of law and should be
dismissed.

6
C. Official Capacity Claims
Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his personal capacity, or in his
official capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his personal and his official
capacities. The type of conduct that is actionable and the type of defense available depend on

whether the claim is asserted against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. See
Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). “Claims against
individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims against the entity for which they
work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the
only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” Id. Personal capacity
claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of
their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised
as a defense” to these individual capacity claims. Id. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law, and that the actor violated a
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);

Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999).
Plaintiff did not allege any policy, procedure, or custom caused the alleged interference
with his mail or his access to the courts. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state any official
capacity claims. Additionally, since Plaintiff has failed to state an individual claim against
Defendants, he cannot maintain an official capacity claim against them. See Morris v. Cradduck,
954 F.3d 1055, 1060 (8th Cir. 2020) Sanders v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 474 F.3d 523, 527
(8th Cir. 2007) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986))
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants be dismissed,
7
without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the 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.
DATED this 16th day of April 2024.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10633017. Public record. Not legal advice.