The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
ZACHARIAH LEE ZELK PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 3:25-cv-03050-CDC
SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY, Baxter
County, Arkansas; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
TABITHA MAZE, Baxter County Detention
Center (BCDC); LPN SHERRI HILTON,
BCDC; RN ALISHA COOPER, BCDC;
SERGEANT ALMA BROWN, BCDC DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Zachariah Lee Zelk (“Zelk”), filed this action alleging civil rights violations under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Zelk proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before the Court for
preservice screening of the amended complaint (ECF No. 10) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 some of
Plaintiff’s claims require dismissal, the Court enters its findings as a Report and Recommendation
and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge Timothy L. Brooks.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; General Order 2024-02.
I. BACKGROUND
Zelk’s amended complaint asserts several different claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
a variety of defendants, for violations of his constitutional rights. Two of his claims allege that
various defendants interfered with or deprived him of medical care. See ECF 10, pp. 4–7. Another
two of his claims allege that several defendants have subjected him to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Zelk also
brings two First Amendment claims: one alleging that several defendants have deprived him of the
ability to communicate with the outside world and with counsel; and another alleging that several
defendants have infringed his right of access to the courts.
Zelk brings his claims against all defendants in both their official and individual capacities.
As relief, he is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARD
The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-
iii).
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)). 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
Section 1983 was enacted to provide a “broad remedy for violations of federally protected
civil rights.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). To assert a claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that the action occurred under color of law; and
(2) that the action is a deprivation of a federal statutory or constitutional right.
There are two deficiencies in Zelk’s amended complaint. The most straightforward one is
that although the caption names RN Alisha Cooper as a defendant, the pleading does not actually
contain any factual allegations about her. Lacking any facts about Defendant Cooper, the amended
complaint does not provide any basis for inferring that she deprived Zelk of any federal right.
Since the amended complaint does not state any claims against Defendant Cooper, she must be
dismissed from this case.
The other deficiency concerns Zelk’s First Amendment claim for deprivation of his right
of access to the courts. Zelk alleges that the law library at the detention center where he is housed
“consists of a milk crate with 3 books, none of which pertain to civil law or rules of civil
procedure.” See ECF, p. 10. He claims he was told by Defendant Brown that their book on the
rules of civil procedure was stolen and that they are awaiting delivery of a new copy. See id. He
also claims that Defendant Brown refused his request to “print me off something that would help
me in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers.” Id. Zelk asserts that this violates his
right of access to the courts under the First Amendment.
“To prove a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must
establish the state has not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s . . .
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.” White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d
677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007). To prove “actual injury,” the plaintiff must “demonstrate that a
nonfrivolous legal claim ha[s] been frustrated or [is] being impeded.” Id. Here, Zelk has not
alleged any facts showing that his ability to litigate his other claims in this case have actually been
frustrated or impeded. Indeed, he has successfully filed both a complaint (ECF 1) and a motion
(ECF 7) to file his amended complaint (ECF 10), as well as a successful petition to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF 2). No other filings have been required of him thus far, given that service
on the defendants has not yet been ordered or effectuated.1
Since Zelk’s amended complaint does not allege any facts showing that he has suffered an
“actual injury” to his right of access to the courts, that claim must be dismissed. And since this is
the only claim for which Defendant Brown is named, she must also be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), it is recommended that:
(1) All claims against Defendants RN Alisha Cooper and Sergeant Alma Brown be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
(2) Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his First Amendment right of access to the courts
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
This leaves for later resolution Plaintiff’s claims regarding deprivation of medical care,
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and restrictions on communication with the outside
world. By separate order the amended complaint will be served on Defendants Montgomery,
Maze, and Hilton.
Status of Referral: This case should remain referred for all matters not recommended
for dismissal in this report and recommendation.
1 Zelk has also filed a motion to appoint counsel (ECF 6), which was denied (ECF 8).
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.
RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 2025.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE