# Terry

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11243182

## Case

- **Full name:** Jarell Davis Terry v. Karma Thorns, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.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/11243182

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that baseless facts include those that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION

JARELL DAVIS TERRY, PLAINTIFF
ADC # 149998

v. 4:25CV01203-JM-JTK

KARMA THORNS, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge
James M. Moody, Jr. 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
Jarell Davis Terry (“Plaintiff”) is in custody at the Larry B. Norris Unit of the Arkansas
Division of Correction (“ADC”). He filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983. (Doc. No. 2). Although Plaintiff submitted a declaration (Doc. No. 1). that makes the
showing required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP Motion”) should be denied because Plaintiff is a “three striker” under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and, as set out below, has not established imminent danger.
II. SCREENING
The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. '1915A(a).1 Additionally, the
PLRA, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), provides that:

[i]n 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 three (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 is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

1 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).

Additionally, to survive a court’s screening, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. The plausibility
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with”
a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement
to relief.” Id.
Plaintiff has had at least three complaints dismissed for failure to state a claim.2 The Court
finds that Plaintiff is a “three-striker” within the meaning of the PLRA. Gonzalez v. United
States, 23 F. 4th 788, 789-91 (8th Cir. 2022).
Plaintiff may, however, be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis if he falls under the
“imminent danger” exception to the three strikes rule set forth above. 28 U.S.C. '1915(g). This

exception does not apply to allegations of past danger, and the alleged harm must be “real and
proximate” and occurring at the time the complaint is filed. Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531
(7th Cir. 2002). In the Eighth Circuit, the exception does not apply unless the plaintiff alleges
“specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct
evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048,
1050 (8th Cir. 2003).
In this case, Plaintiff sued 19 ADC officials alleging various violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights, including due process violations, excessive force, conditions of confinement,
and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, among others. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff’s

claims largely arise from alleged deliberate indifference to serious health problems Plaintiff has
after he swallowed a “flex pen” that is now “stuck inside [him] traveling through [his] lower/mid
torso down [his] legs and feet.” (Id. at 8). This is the fourth lawsuit Plaintiff has filed
complaining about inadequate medical care after swallowing a flex pen.3

2 Terry v. Rechcigl, 2:20-CV-00079-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (dismissed June 30, 2020, for failure
to state a claim) (affirmed on appeal); Terry v. Watson, 2:22-CV-00111-BSM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 25)
(dismissed Aug. 25, 2022, for failure to state a claim) (no appeal filed); Terry v. Payne, 2:23-CV-
00059- BSM (E.D. Ark.) (dismissed Apr. 28, 2023, for failure to state a claim) (no appeal filed).

3 Terry v. Sims, 4:24-CV-00999-BSM (E.D. Ark.); Terry v. Stapleton, et al., 4:25-CV-
00071-KGB (E.D. Ark); and Terry v. Seamster, et al., 4:25-CV-00446-KGB (E.D. Ark.)
In Terry v. Seamster, et al., United States Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore set out the
history and content of Plaintiff’s flex pen cases. No. 4:25-CV-00446-KGB-BBM, 2025 WL
3224437, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:25-CV-
00446 KGB-BBM, 2025 WL 3219481 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2025). Judge Moore noted that

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the cases following a recommendation that the action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff “had received multiple medical examinations
regarding the allegedly swallowed flex pen, including x-rays of his cervical spine that were within
normal limits.” (Id. at 1). In the case before Judge Moore, she found Plaintiff’s claims
“irrational and fanstastical.” (Id. at 4).
Plaintiff continues his irrational and fantastical claims in this case.4 He says the flex pen
“is now at [his] lower stomach . . . still causing daily pain . . . at [his] knees, ankles . . . neck and
spine . . . no treatment given.” (Doc. No. 2 at 9). He also says excessive force in May, 2025,
damaged his spine. (Id. at 8). According to Plaintiff, a slew of ADC officials conspired against
him to prevent him from receiving proper medical care. (Id. at 9, 11). Plaintiff says to deal with

the pain he is using illegal drugs. (Id. at 9).
Plaintiff’s allegations about the flex pen and lack of medical care are baseless. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (explaining that baseless facts include those that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional). Many of Plaintiff’s remaining allegations involve incidents
that took place months in the past. Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement may have been
uncomfortable, but nothing in Plaintiff’s pleadings suggests those conditions placed Plaintiff at
risk of serious physical injury. None of Plaintiff other claims suggest so, either.

4 I note Plaintiff’s allegation that I was involved in a conspiracy to provide dangerous
inmates in Max 5 cellphones and I count those allegations as baseless, as well. Denton, 504 U.S.
at 32-33.
Even liberally construing Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiffs allegations do
not support a finding of “ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing
the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050. As such,
Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice pending payment of the $402.00 filing
and administrative fee.
I. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's IFP Motion (Doc. No. 1) be DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. If Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he be required to submit the statutory filing
and administrative fee of $402.00 to the Clerk, noting the above case style and number, within
fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, together with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt
of the motion and full payment, the case will be reopened.
4. 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 the accompanying Judgment would
not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 12" day of December, 2025. □□

JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11243182. Public record. Not legal advice.