# Bordock

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · December 12, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239741

## Case

- **Full name:** Laurie Bordock v. Mountain Home, City of
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 12, 2025
- **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/11239741

## Opinion text

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

LAURIE BORDOCK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:25-cv-03031

MOUNTAIN HOME, CITY OF DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by Laurie Bordock (hereinafter “Bordock”) pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Bordock proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b). Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(b), the Court has an obligation to dismiss a case at any
time if the Court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from relief. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy
L. Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making a Report and Recommendation
I. BACKGROUND
Bordock filed a complaint on May 14, 2025, alleging that her civil rights were violated by
being falsely arrested by Officer Daniel King and seeking 10 million dollars and compensatory
damages of $278 which she paid to bail out of jail. (ECF No. 2, pp. 3–4). Bordock alleges that her
rights were violated when she was arrested for asking a lady for 50 cents in the Tractor Supply
parking lot. (ECF No. 2, pp. 4, 6).
In her amended complaint Bordock alleges that her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
1
happiness was violated, but does not tie this claim to any specific constitutional rights. (ECF No.
17, p. 3). She also lists defamation, libel, and slander as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Id. Bordock elaborates that the date of her false arrest was March 27, 2025, and states that she
faces constant harassment from the police. (ECF No. 17, p. 4). Bordock states that she has been

threated with arrest for feeding stray cats, that she was threatened with arrest for stealing a Tractor
Supply cart while trying to return the cart to Tractor Supply, and that she had been banned from
shopping at the Twin Lakes Plaza shopping center. (ECF No. 17, p. 6).
Bordock has also sent letters to the Court, which provide some background information. In
a letter dated June 4, 2025, Bordock reports that the Mayor of Mountain Home is involved with
the Sinaloa Mexican Cartel, child sex-trafficking, and drug trafficking. Bordock states that the
District Court told her that if she did not get in trouble for six months, they would drop the current
charges of disorderly conduct and she was given back $255 from the bail bonds fee. (ECF No. 8
p. 1). Bordock reiterates her demand for 10 million dollars in damages for civil rights violations
and states that Officer Daniel King, Officer James Carpenter, and Officer Petite should not be

allowed to falsely arrest or threaten to falsely arrest decent Americans like her. (ECF No. 8, p. e).
In a letter incorrectly dated as June 23, 2024, Bordock complains that the City of Mountain
Home should be focused on cleaning up drug and child-sex trafficking networks rather than
harassing people like her. (ECF No. 10, p. 1). Bordock reports being told by locals that the Mayor
is working with a Cartel. Id. Bordock further reports that juveniles are being given dope and driving
dangerously while the police do nothing to stop this behavior, choosing instead to arrest Bordock
for asking someone for a couple of quarters and for feeding stray cats. Id. Bordock discusses a few
more people she has heard are criminally involved and that the City of Mountain Home should be

2
focusing their police efforts on dangerous individuals and on getting a new Mayor. (ECF No. 10,
p. 2).
In a letter dated July 30, 2025, Bordock states that she was falsely arrested on March 27th
by Officer Daniel King after asking a lady in a car for a couple of quarters. (ECF No. 12, p. 2).

Bordock states that she paid nearly $300 to get out of jail, and the officer was blasting hard rock
music while she was detained, put the handcuffs on very tight, and did not read her Miranda Rights
when she was arrested. Id. However, when she appeared in court most of her money was returned
except for about thirty-five dollars. Id. Bordock repeatsthat she was later threated by Officers
Jones, Carpenter, Tyler, and Politter with arrest for stealing a Tractor Supply shopping cart which
she was trying to return to the store after finding it by a blessing box. Id.
In a letter dated October 7, 2025, Bordock states that she is being terrorized by juvenile
delinquents and attempted to get help from two police officers who did take the license plate
numbers but also informed her that she was banned from the McDonald’s location where this
occurred. (ECF No. 14, p. 2). She later had another negative experience with juvenile delinquents

hanging out in the Sonic parking lot; she was sitting in another stall, and two Officers, McCoy and
Steele, told her she had to calm down and stop causing a scene. Id. Bordock states that a local oil
company, the City of Mountain Home and their Mayor are in league with a cartel and there is drug
trafficking and child sex-trafficking at the local airport. (ECF No. 14, p. 3). Bordock reiterates her
complaint that she has been threatened with arrest for feeding stray cats, naming Officer Campfield
as the harassing officer. Id. Bordock states that the City of Mountain Home has returned to their
old practices as in 2002 or so, when she was told by a policeman to leave town “or else” resulting
in her taking a bus to Harrison. Id. Bordock states that the juvenile delinquents are not

3
microchipped like the rest of the drug dealers, and they need to be so that they can be controlled.
(ECF No. 14, p. 5). Bordock states that she called Lieutenant Bryan Corbett at the local precinct
to complain about Officers Steel and McCoy harassing her at the Sonic Drive-In instead of
arresting the Juvenile delinquents and that he did not care. (ECF No. 14, p. 7). Bordock reiterates

that the police are rumored to be involved with a cartel. (ECF No. 14, p. 8). Bordock reports that
she is banned from a number of businesses including Tractor Supply, Chens Chinese Restaruant,
Twin Lakes Plaza, McDonads, Brick Oven Pizza, Harp’s and Wendy’s. Id. Bordock states that she
believes the harassment by juvenile delinquents at the Sonic Drive-In as well as at the Twin Lakes
Plaza are an inside job by the Mayor who wants her out of their city because she is suing them.
(ECF No. 14, p. 10). Bordock alleges that Mayor Adams used to be the Postmaster General but
was fired in 2003 for fraud and corruption. (ECF No. 14, p. 11).
In a letter dated November 29, 2025, Bordock states she was threated with arrest by Officer
Gabriel Bently while sitting under an awning to get out of the rain in a shopping center. (ECF No.
18, p. 11). Bordock reports having been banned from many stores. (ECF No. 18, p. 3). Bordock

reiterates her belief that Mountain home has a child sex-trafficking network, connections to
Cartels, and is importing prison labor and engaging in prison slavery. (ECF No. 18).
Reading Bordock’s complaints as a whole, and liberally, it appears that Bordock has three
categories of complaints: 1) false arrest by Officer King on March 27, 2025, in the Tractor Supply
parking lot when asking a woman in a car for 50 cents which resulted in Bordock being charged
with disorderly conduct; 2) harassment and threats of arrest by various officers for feeding cats,
sitting under an awning at a shopping center, and for allegedly stealing a shopping cart which she
was trying to return; 3) complaints that the City of Mountain Home is involved in illegal activities

4
and is hostile toward Bordock and others.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Under § 1915(e)(2)(b), the Court is obligated 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.
§ 1915(e)(2)(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.” Id. at 544. However, the complaint must still allege specific facts sufficient to
support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

5
III. DISCUSSION
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. In order 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).
A. False Arrest by Officer Daniel King
Bordock alleges that she was unlawfully arrested by Officer King in the Tractor Supply
parking lot while asking a stranger for a small amount of money. (ECF Nos 2, 8, 12, 17). Bordock
reports that she had a District Court date for this arrest where most of her bail money was returned
and she was told that the charges of disorderly conduct would be dropped in six months if she had
no further incidents. (ECF No. 8). Bordock does not state whether she plead guilty or not guilty to
the charge of disorderly conduct and does not state whether the unreturned money was a fine;

Bordock provides no records regarding this court date.
The Court has used the facts provided to find Baxter County case CR-25-700. Bordock was
arrested for disorderly conduct and plead not guilty. The case was deferred for six months to be
dismissed if Bordock had no further arrests. As Bordock was not arrested again, the case was
dismissed on December 9, 2025.
Bordock does not clarify in her pleadings whether she seeks to sue Officer King in his
individual capacity or in his official capacity. Under section 1983, a defendant may be sued in
either his individual capacity, or in his official capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant

6
in both his individual and his official capacities. Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir.
1998). With respect to official capacity claims, they are “functionally equivalent to a suit against
the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th
Cir. 2010). In other words, Plaintiff’s official capacity claim against Officer King would be

treated as a claim against the City of Mountain Home. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 873
(8th Cir. 2010).
“[I]t is well established that a municipality [or county] cannot be held liable on a
respondeat superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” Atkinson v. City of
Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1214 (8th Cir. 2013). To establish the City of Mountain
Home’s liability under section 1983, “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was
committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle
v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Bordock has not alleged that
any policy of the City of Mountain Home contributed to the alleged violation of her rights on the
day of her arrest. Therefore, the Court will consider Bordock’s claim against Officer King in his

individual capacity.
i. False Arrest
An officer is entitled to “qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest if the arrest was
supported by at least ‘arguable probable cause.’” Joseph, 712 F.3d at 1226. “Arguable probable
cause exists even where an officer mistakenly arrests a suspect believing it is based on probable
cause if the mistake is objectively reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The existence of probable cause is a question of law. Id. at 1227. A false arrest claim
under § 1983 “fails as a matter of law where the officer had probable cause to make the arrest.”

7
Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001).
“[P]robable cause is a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in
particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983). The Eighth Circuit has provided a fluid definition to

provide some guidance in evaluating the existence of probable cause. Specifically, the Eighth
Circuit has stated that “[p]robable cause exists when “the totality of the circumstances at the time
of the arrest ‘[is] sufficient to lead a reasonable officer to believe that the defendant has committed
or is committing an offense.” Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 523 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2010)). “The substance of all the
definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.” Baribeau v. City of
Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 474 (8th Cir. 2010).
“We must give law enforcement officers ‘substantial latitude in interpreting and drawing
inferences from factual circumstances,’ ... but such latitude is not without limits.” Kuehl v. Burtis,
173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Washington, 109 F.3d 459, 465 (8th

Cir. 1997)). First, evidence tending to “negate the possibility that a suspect committed a crime is
relevant” to whether probable cause exists. Id. “In this sense, the Fourth Amendment requires
that we analyze the weight of all the evidence—not merely the sufficiency of the incriminating
evidence.” Id. Second, “law enforcement officers have a duty to conduct a reasonably thorough
investigation prior to arresting a suspect, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances and so
long as law enforcement would not be unduly hampered if the agents wait to obtain more facts
before seeking arrest.” Id. (internal punctuation marks and citations omitted).
Here, Bordock alleges that she was arrested for disorderly conduct while simply asking

8
someone for change. Read liberally, Bordock alleges she was arrested by Officer King for
disorderly conduct without a warrant when she was not engaged in disorderly conduct. Plaintiff
has pled sufficient facts to raise the question of whether probable cause existed at the time of her
arrest and this claim should be allowed to proceed.

ii. Miranda Rights
In one of her letters to the Court, Bordock reported that she was not read her Miranda rights
when she was arrested by Officer King. (ECF No. 12, p. 2). The Constitution does not require the
giving of Miranda warnings. See e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003). In United States
v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), the Supreme Court noted that “[o]ur cases . . . make clear . . . that
a mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate a suspect’s constitutional rights
or even the Miranda rule. . . [T]he nature of the right protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause,
which the Miranda rule, in turn, protects . . . is a fundamental trial right.” Id. at 641 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). If statements obtained during custodial interrogation are
not used against the party, there is no constitutional violation. Davis v. City of Charleston, 827

F.2d 317, 322 (8th Cir. 1987). Here, Bordock has not alleged that there was a custodial
interrogation or that her statements made during that time were used against her. Therefore, this is
not a cognizable claim.
B. Harassment by Various Officers
In her amended complaint, Bordock states that she faces constant harassment from the
police while not violating the law, and provided the example of being threatened with arrest by
Officer Campfield for feeding stray cats outside. (ECF No. 17, p. 4). In a letter to the Court
Bordock states she was threatened with arrest by Officers Jones, Carpenter, Tyler, and Politter,

9
when she was trying to return a Tractor Supply shopping cart which they believed she had stolen.
(ECF No. 12, p. 2). Bordock’s claims of harassment by the police consist of situations where she
has been told that her actions may result in her arrest. To the extent that these interactions can be
considered harassment, Bordock has not alleged that they have escalated beyond what would be

considered verbal threats.
“Generally, mere verbal threats made by a state-actor do not constitute a § 1983 claim.”
Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.1992). “We have held that a threat
constitutes an actionable constitutional violation only when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel
as to shock the conscience, see Hopson, 961 F.2d at 1378–79, or if the threat exerts coercive
pressure on the plaintiff and the plaintiff suffers the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Bishop
v. Tice, 622 F.2d 349, 354 (8th Cir.1980).” King v. Olmsted Cnty., 117 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir.
1997). Plaintiff does not allege that any of the officers have engaged in verbal threats that are brutal
or wantonly cruel, or that they exert the type of coercive pressure that has caused her to suffer the
deprivation of a constitutional right. Therefore, Bordock has failed to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted with regards to harassment.
C. Claims Against the City of Mountain Home
In her amended complaint, Bordock makes a number of statements about the City of
Mountain Home—that it is engaged in prison slavery, that the city is lawless and involved in drug
dealing, the mayor is a criminal, and that there are juvenile terrorists who behave recklessly. (ECF
No. 17, p. 6). These allegations are broad and do not connect her allegations to which of her rights
are being violated, or the person violating them.
It is unclear from her pleadings what claims Plaintiff is trying to state, and the Court will

10
not speculate as to potential claims. Even under the notice pleading standards of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8, a pro se plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support a claim. Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); See Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level”). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Bordock also lists defamation, libel, and slander as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 17, p. 3). Defamation of character does not state a constitutional violation.
“[D]efamation, per se, is not actionable under section 1983.” Underwood v. Pritchard, 638 F.2d
60, 62 (8th Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court has held that a person’s interest in his reputation is not
considered liberty or property protected by the due process clause. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,
711-12 (1976). In other words, the “Supreme Court has made clear that federal courts are not to
view defamatory acts as constitutional violations.” Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit,
215 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 2000). No cognizable claim for defamation is stated, and therefore this

claim should not be allowed to proceed.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court recommends that Bordock’s claim against Officer King for false
arrest be allowed to proceed in his individual capacity and that all of Bordock’s claims against the
City of Mountain Home be Dismissed Without Prejudice.
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

11
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 12th day of December 2025.

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239741. Public record. Not legal advice.