Smith v. Tallant et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CURTIS WAYNE DALE SMITH, JR. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC
JANA TALLANT, Howard County Jail Administrator;
JOEY DAVIS, Howard County Detention Center;
LAJUANDA LINDSEY, Jailer; JORDAN BRADSHAW, Jailer;
JOSHUA BRADSHAW, Jailer; MARLINE TALLANT;
TYLER LOVELIS, Jailer; FRANSICO ARCE, JR.,
Mineral Springs Chief of Police; CASEY PARKER;
BRYAN MCJUNKINS, Sheriff of Howard County;
ANABELE WHITE, Jailer; and DR. JOAN MCLEAN 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Curtis Wayne Dale Smith Jr., filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). 	Pursuant to § 1915A(a), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which
a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
on November 27, 2023. 	(ECF Nos. 1, 2). 	The Court granted Plaintiff IFP status on the same
day. 	(ECF No. 3). 	Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 	Id.
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Specifically, the Court advised Plaintiff:
In Section III of the Complaint, Plaintiff is directed to list each Defendant. In this
case, Plaintiff has listed only two individuals as Defendants—Jana Tallant and Joey
Davis. However, under the statement of his claims, Plaintiff has listed several other
individuals as being involved. If Plaintiff intends to list these individuals as
Defendants, he must do so in Section III of the Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff’s
writing is cramped in spots, crossed out in places, and in other ways difficult to read
in some areas.
(ECF No. 3, p. 1). 	Plaintiff was also advised what the law required in his amended complaint:
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the
Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of
the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed
to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation
of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered
because of that Defendant’s conduct . . . Plaintiff must repeat this process for each
person he has named as a Defendant. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must
affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury he
suffered. If he fails to do, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim.
(ECF No. 3, p. 2).
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on January 10, 2024. 	(ECF No. 8). 	The Amended
Complaint is also difficult to decipher, however, the Court has taken care to interpret Plaintiff’s
claims and organize them in a logical order for purposes of this screening analysis.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again only list Jana Tallant, Jail Administrator of
Howard County Detention Center (“HCDC”), Joey Davis, Chief Deputy of HCDC, and the “rest
of the jail staff, facility faculty, and institutions” in the case heading. 	Then, in the section for
identifying defendants, Plaintiff lists only Jana Tallant and Joey Davis as Defendants. 	(ECF No.
8, pp. 1-3). 	However, as in his original Complaint, Plaintiff listed multiple other Defendants
within the body of the Amended Complaint. 	Such Defendants0F
1 include Lajuanda Lindsey, a jailer
1 The Court notes Plaintiff did not provide the job title for all persons listed and the spelling of
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
at HCDC; Jordan and Joshua Bradshaw; Marline Tallant; Tyler Lovelis, a jailer at HCDC; Fransico
Arce, Jr., the Chief of Policy for Mineral Springs, Arkansas; Casey Parker, Bryan McJunkins,
Sheriff of Howard County, Dr. Joan McLean; Anabele White; and “all Pafford Medical.” 	(ECF
No. 8, p. 7).
Plaintiff 	first 	asserts 	Defendant 	Jana 	Tallant, 	as 	Jail 	Administrator, 	violated 	his
constitutional rights by: (1) denying him contact with his counsel; (2) denying him medical care
by refusing treatment after his arrest on March 13, 2023; (3) denying him access to mail; (4)
denying him visitations; and (5) subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement – a
poor diet, mixed population of felons and non-felons in housing units, and insufficient beds and
showers. 	(ECF No. 8, p. 4-8).
Plaintiff also asserts Defendant Joey Davis violated his constitutional rights using
excessive force while arresting him on March 13, 2023. 	Specifically, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant Davis drove his knee into Plaintiff’s back and pulled his arm back cracking Plaintiff’s
vertebrae. 	(ECF No. 8, pp. 5, 7).
Next, Plaintiff claims Defendant Fransico Arce, Jr. from Mineral Springs arrested him
without a warrant on false charges of forgery from the Dollar General Store. 	(ECF No. 6).
Plaintiff does not provide a date for this arrest but does state it occurred at a home that was not his
home. 	Id. 	Plaintiff also devotes approximately half a page in his Amended Complaint to
generally challenging his charges, arrests, and convictions. 	(ECF No. 8, p. 6). 	It is unclear which
charges and arrests Plaintiff is challenging here. 	Plaintiff requests, as part of his relief, for his
entire criminal record in the State of Arkansas to be expunged and sealed. 	(ECF No. 8, p. 11).
each name is the Court’s best interpretation of Plaintiff’s handwriting.
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff next claims Defendant McLean denied him medical care when she refused to run
diagnostic tests on his back after Defendant Davis’s use of force. 	(ECF No. 8, p. 7).
Plaintiff also claims he was not properly mirandized upon his arrest. 	He does not,
however, indicate which arrest this regards nor which Defendant this claim is made against. 	(ECF
No. 8, p. 5).
Finally, as a general argument throughout his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff argues
Defendants did not follow procedures and rules of the HCDC. 	(ECF No. 8).
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
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) seek 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. 	In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988); Spencer
v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987). 	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).
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
III. 	DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the Court must recommend dismissal of all Defendants who Plaintiff
listed but did not connect to any of his factual allegations. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 	Rule 8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 	“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.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 	Here, Plaintiff did not
assert any factual allegations against Lajuanda Lindsey, Jordan Bradshaw, Joshua Bradshaw,
Marline Tallant, Tyler Lovelis, Casey Parker, Bryan McJunkins, or Anabele White. 	As Plaintiff
was previously advised, any claims that did not state specific actions by each named Defendant
would be dismissed. 	(ECF No. 3).
Accordingly, Lajuanda Lindsey, Jordan Bradshaw, Joshua Bradshaw, Marline Tallant,
Tyler Lovelis, Casey Parker, Bryan McJunkins, and Anabele White should be dismissed without
prejudice from this matter.
Additionally, based on the same reasoning, Plaintiff’s generalized listing of “all Pafford
Medical Staff” and the “rest of the jail staff, facility faculty, and institutions” as defendants in this
matter is insufficient. 	Plaintiff has not alleged specific claims against these unnamed individuals
or given the Court any indication of who these individuals may be.
Next, Plaintiff appears to challenge the validity of his arrests1F
2 , criminal convictions, and
2 The Court notes Plaintiff specifically claims he did not receive proper Miranda rights when
arrested. 	However, Plaintiff does not allege which Defendant failed to Mirandize him, or when
this failure occurred. 	As explained herein, general allegations that fail to tie actions to
individuals are insufficient to state claims upon which relief may be granted. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
imprisonment. 	Plaintiff is generally requesting relief from all his arrest and convictions, but
specifically challenges his arrest by Defendant Fransico Arce, Jr. 	With respect to this arrest,
Plaintiff only claims the forgery charge for which Defendant Arce arrested him was false. 	Claims
seeking compensation for criminal convictions or imprisonment are barred unless “the conviction
or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by
a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 	Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 	As
Plaintiff presently seeks expungement of his criminal record, it is clear he cannot satisfy the Heck
requirement at this time.
Additionally, Plaintiff may not use Section 1983 as a substitute for habeas relief. These
claims must be pursued properly through 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	See e.g., Singleton v. Norris, 319
F.3d 1018, 1023 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Section 2254 is the only means by which ‘a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court’ may raise challenges to the validity of his conviction or
sentence or to the execution of his sentence.”) (quoting Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720, 723 (8th
Cir. 2001)).
For these reasons, all of Plaintiff’s claims related to his arrests, convictions, and
imprisonment should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and Defendant Arce should be dismissed from this matter.
Finally, all of Plaintiff’s claims related to Defendants failing to follow the HCDC rules and
procedures, or police department procedures, or state law are defective as a matter of law. 	It is
well-settled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to enforce compliance with internal
8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
prison rules or regulations or state law. See Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003)
(“there is no federal constitutional liberty interest in having state officers follow state law or prison
officials follow prison regulations”); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (“there
is no § 1983 liability for violating prison policy”); see also Edwards v. Baer, 863 F.2d 606, 608
(8th Cir. 1988) (“police department guidelines do not create a constitutional right”). 	Accordingly,
all of Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendants’ failure to follow HCDC policy and procedure,
various police department procedure, and/or state law should be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court has reviewed the facts alleged by Plaintiff against Defendant Tallant for denial
of counsel, denial of medical care, mail, and visitation, and for subjecting him to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. 	The Court similarly reviewed facts alleged by Plaintiff against
Defendant Davis for use of excessive force and against Defendant McLean for denial of medical
care. 	The Court finds Plaintiff stated sufficient facts to allege claims for relief that are plausible
on the face of the Amended Complaint, and it is recommended that these claims survive for service
of process.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended:
1. 	Defendants Lajuanda Lindsey, Jordan Bradshaw, Joshua Bradshaw, Marline
Tallant, Tyler Lovelis, Fransico Arce, Jr., Casey Parker, Bryan McJunkins, and Anabele White be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	relating 	to 	his 	arrests, 	imprisonment 	and 	convictions 	be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure to state
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3. 	Plaintiff’s claims relating to procedural, rule, and state law violations be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
4. 	Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force alleged against Defendant Joey Davis shall
proceed for service.
5. 	Plaintiff’s claim of denial of medical care against Defendant McLean shall proceed
for service.
6. 	Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Tallant of denial of medical care, denial of
access to counsel, denial of access to mail, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and denial
of visitations shall proceed for service.
A separate order for service of process on these Defendants shall be issued.
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.
DATED this 6 th day of February 2024.
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 10 Filed 02/06/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>