Walker v. WalMart, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

SCOTT ALLEN WALKER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv- 05158-TLB-CDC

WALMART, INC., Siloam Springs;

CORPORAL STAMPS, Benton County

Detention Center (BCDC); PUBLIC

DEFENDER SAM HALL; JUDGE GREEN;

and JUDGE KARREN DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SCREENING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Scott A. Walker (“Walker”), under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. However, because

not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document

will be dispositive of Walker’s claims, this document will be filed as a Report and

Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge

Timothy L. Brooks. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

General Order 2024-02.

The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1

Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress

from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, on August 6, 2019, Walker was

arrested for theft of property from the Siloam Springs Walmart that occurred on April 4, 2018.

1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

(ECF No. 10 at 4). Walker alleges that Jayme Weber and Brooke Pool from Walmart asset

protection were responsible for his arrest. Id. Walker maintains that on the April 4, 2018, he was

in federal custody in Sedgwick County Jail in Wichita, Kansas.

On August 6, 2019, Walker states he cleared the “drug screen” performed at the Benton

County Detention Center (“BCDC”) and as a result could not have brought drugs into the jail on

August 7, 2019. (ECF No. 10 at 5). When Walker was brought before Defendant Green for

arraignment she asked if his date of birth was in 1992. Id. At this point, the prosecuting attorney

informed Defendant Green of the furnishing drugs charge to which Defendant Green is alleged to

have stated: “He is not a black man.” Id. Walker states he was released on both charges. Id.

However, he maintains Defendant Green was derelict in her duties because she did not dismiss

both cases. Id.

In two court appearances before Defendant Karren, Walker stated he did not want

Defendant Hall as his attorney. (ECF No. 10 at 5). Walker maintains Defendant Hall provided

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. Walker indicates he was coerced into entering into a plea

agreement. Id.

Defendant Stamps is the person who allegedly found drugs in Walker’s possession in a

“toilet paper and baggie with 4 grams inside.” (ECF No. 10 at 5). Walker states the substance

was not tested. Id. He further asserts that Defendant Stamps put the methamphetamine on him.

Id. at 6.

As relief, Walker seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 10 at 7).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged 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). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or

it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to

vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re

Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). 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)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is

discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe

the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal

framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). However, the complaint must still allege

specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of

a citizen’s “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United

States. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) each defendant

acted under color of state law, and (2) that he or she violated a right secured by the constitution.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999).

Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitation. Instead, causes of action under

§ 1983 are governed by “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.” Wilson

v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268 (1985). In Arkansas, this is the three-year personal injury statute of

limitations, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105(3). See Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cty.,

Ark., 758 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir. 2014).

Walker filed this case on July 30, 2024. The statute of limitation clearly bars Walker from

recovering for actions which occurred in 2019.

Even if his claims were not barred, his claims against Defendants Green and Karren would

be dismissed as both are entitled to absolute immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54

(1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges

for liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction”). Additionally,

Walker’s claim against Defendant Hall would not be allowed to proceed because Defendant Hall

did not act under color of state law when representing Walker in state court criminal matters. Polk

Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324 (1981) (neither public defenders nor privately retained defense

counsel act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel

to a defendant in criminal proceedings).

Finally, the Court notes Walker previously brought a case regarding the 2019 theft of

property charge, Walker v. Ware, et al., 5:19-cv-05189, which was dismissed with prejudice on

December 3, 2021.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as it

is barred by the statute of limitations, fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted, and

involves Defendants who are either immune from suit or not subject to suit under § 1983.

The parties have fourteen 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.

RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September 2024.

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE