Knowles v. Morris

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTREZE KNOWLES PLAINTIFF

ADC # 179667

v. 3:25CV00057-DPM-JTK

CHRISTOPHER MORRIS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Antreze Knowles (“Plaintiff”) is in custody at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Division of

Correction (“ADC”). Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (Doc. No.

2) and a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a), which the Court

granted by separate Order. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3) The Court must screen Plaintiff’s Complaint

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and in forma pauperis statute.

I. Screening

The 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). See also 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) (screening requirements).

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).

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff sued Grimes Unit Sergeant Christopher Morris, Corliss Jordan, and Nurse

Ramona Wren (collectively, “Defendants”) in their official capacities only. (Doc. No. 2 at 1-2).

On January 1, 2025, Plaintiff stuck his arm “in the food port to speak with” Defendant Wren. (Id.

at 4). Defendant Jordan was conducting pill call at that time. (Id.). According to Plaintiff,

Defendant Jordan slammed Plaintiff’s arm in the food port and “released a[] burst of mace to

[Plaintiff’s] facial area.” (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Jordan did not notify

Defendant Morris as he should have but continued conducting pill call as if nothing had happened.

(Id.). Defendant Morris called in the incident and began questioning Defendant Jordan. (Id.).

Defendant Jordan told Defendant Morris that Plaintiff tried to grab Defendant Wren. (Doc. No.

2 at 4).

Plaintiff seeks damages. (Id. at 5).

III. Discussion

As mentioned above, Plaintiff sued Defendants in their official capacities 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). Plaintiff’s claims against any Defendant employed by the ADC are the equivalent of

claims against the State of Arkansas. To the extent Defendant Wren may be employed by a third

party, Plaintiff’s claims against her are the equivalent of claims against her employer. See

Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (1993).

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Morris and Wren do not indicate any

wrongdoing. Plaintiff has not alleged a constitutional violation against Defendants Morris and

Wren. Without the possibility of individual liability, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims fail.

Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1067, n.3 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Absent an underlying

constitutional violation . . . official-capacity . . . claims . . . necessarily fail.”)

Plaintiff alleged excessive force against Defendant Jordan. But Plaintiff did not bring

personal capacity claims and Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant Jordan acted pursuant to an

unlawful ADC policy. Without such allegations, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jordan fails.

Hood v. Norris, 189 F. App'x 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (to establish liability in official-capacity suit

under § 1983, plaintiff must show defendant took action pursuant to unconstitutional governmental

policy or custom) (citation omitted). Even more fundamentally, Plaintiff seeks only damages.

Plaintiff’s official capacity damages claim against Defendant Jordan is barred by Eleventh

Amendment. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

As currently pled, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted. He will be given the chance to file an Amended Complaint to cure the defects in his

pleading.

IV. Superseding Amended Complaint

Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the defects explained above. If Plaintiff

decides to amend, Plaintiff should submit to the Court, within thirty (30) days of the entry date of

this Order, a superseding Amended Complaint that contains in a single document his claims against

all Defendants he is suing. Plaintiff is cautioned that an Amended Complaint renders his original

Complaint without legal effect.1 Only claims properly set out in the Amended Complaint will be

allowed to proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should: 1) name as a Defendant

each party he believes deprived him of his constitutional rights and whom he wishes to sue

in this action; 2) provide specific facts against each named Defendant in a simple, concise,

and direct manner, including dates, times, and places if possible; 3) indicate whether he is

suing each Defendant in his/her individual or official capacity, or in both capacities;

4) explain the reasons for an official capacity claim, if she makes one; 5) explain how each

Defendant’s actions harmed him personally; 6) explain the relief he seeks; and 7) otherwise

cure the defects explained above and set out viable claims.

If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I will recommend that his Complaint

be dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2).2

V. Conclusion

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. If Plaintiff wishes to submit an Amended Complaint for the Court’s review, he must

file the Amended Complaint consistent with the above instructions within thirty (30) days from

the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, I will recommend that

1 “An amended complaint ‘ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal

effect.’” In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 101 F.3d 600, 603 (8th Cir. 1996),

quoting International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1994) (other citations

omitted).

2 Plaintiff is notified of his responsibility to comply with the Local Rules of the Court,

including Rule 5.5(c)(2), which states, in part: “If any communication from the Court to a pro se

Plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice.

Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.”

his Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Loc.

R. 5.5(c)(2).

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Complaint form.

Dated this 28™ day of March, 2025. ( /

JEROME T. KEARNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE