The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
CEDRIC DAVIS-BROWN, PLAINTIFF
v. 4:24CV00930-JM-JTK
HAGGERTY DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United
States District Judge James M. Moody. Any party may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or
legal basis for your objections; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14)
days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
fact.
DISPOSITION
I. Introduction
Cedric Davis-Brown (“Plaintiff”) is confined in the Pulaski County Detention Center. He
filed this pro se action alleging unlawful conditions of confinement. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff also
filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which the Court granted. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3). The
Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and
found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 3).
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies in his
pleading. (Id.).
Plaintiff has filed his amended pleading. (Doc. No. 4). The Court will now continue
screening his claims.
II. Screening
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (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).
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).
III. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
Plaintiff did not name a Defendant in his Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 4 at 1-2).
Plaintiff’s statement of claim reads, in its entirety:
Officer Haggerty was smoking on our rec yard on these dates 9-22-24, 9-29-24, 9-
30-24, 10-6-24, 10-13-24, 10-7-24 and other dates as well. This is a “no” smoking
facility and I am allergic to cigarette smoke. I also have asthma and smoke causes
me health problems.
While Plaintiff did not name Officer Haggerty as a Defendant, it is clear from Plaintiff’s
allegations that his claim lies against Officer Haggerty. Plaintiff made official capacity claims
only. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,000,000. (Id. at 5).
IV. Analysis
Plaintiff made official capacity claims only. “A suit against a government officer in his
official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.”
Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Haggerty are the equivalent of claims against Pulaski 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).
In his original Complaint, Plaintiff also brought official capacity claims only. (Doc. No.
2). In its PLRA screening Order, the Court pointed out that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims
failed because he had not “alleged that a policy or practice caused the alleged violation of his
rights.” (Doc. No. 3 at 3). When Plaintiff was given the chance to submit an amended pleading,
the Court advised Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint should “explain the reasons for an official
capacity claim,” among other instructions. (Id. at 5). Despite specific instructions from the
Court, 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
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
V. Conclusion
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted;
2. The Court recommend! that this dismissal count as a “strike” for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);? and
3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and accompanying Judgment would not
be taken in good faith.
Dated this 18™ day of November, 2024. ( /
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 The number of strikes a plaintiff has accrued may be determined only by looking
backwards to past dismissals; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) leaves the effective decision to the later tribunal.
Gonzalez v. United States, 23 F. 4th 788, 789-91 (8th Cir. 2022).
* Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides as follows: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil
action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 1s under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”