Bey v. Singleton et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
BERNARD BEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04007-SOH-BAB
SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON;
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JAMES WISE;
LIEUTENANT EVANS; JOHN OR JANE DOE
1 ST SHIFT SERGEANT; and SERGEANT AVANT 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Bernard Bey, 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 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Motion”) on January 22, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1, 2). 	The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion
on the same date. 	(ECF No. 3). 	In this same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint which he did on January 30, 2024. 	(ECF No. 6). 	This Amended Complaint
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
was vague and indeterminable. 	(ECF No. 6).
The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint on March 5, 2024. 	(ECF
No. 7). 	In this Order, the Court specifically advised Plaintiff of the requirements for his Second
Amended Complaint and went as far as to give Plaintiff an example of the type of information
required:
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the
Court: the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; the name of the Defendant
who violated the right; exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do; how the action or
inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of the constitutional rights; and
what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the misconduct of that Defendant . . . For
example, regarding Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment violation claim: Plaintiff must state who
violated his Sixth Amendment rights; What actions that named defendant took that violated
Plaintiff’s 	Sixth 	Amendment 	rights; 	Specifically 	how 	it 	violated 	Plaintiff’s 	Sixth
Amendment right; and Plaintiff must explain to the Court what injury he suffered from the
violation of his Sixth Amendment rights and how the named Defendant caused that injury.
(ECF No. 7). 	Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to amend. 	On March 28, 2024, the Court
entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to file his Second
Amended Complaint as Ordered. 	(ECF No. 9). 	Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint
on April 4, 2024, (ECF No. 10), and a Supplement (ECF No. 11) on April 11, 2024.
In his Second Amended Complaint the only Defendants listed are “James Singleton and
Al.” 	(ECF No. 10). 	Plaintiff did not complete the Court’s complaint form and failed to indicate
which federal constitutional rights have been violated even though the form specifically requests
this information. 	Additionally, when prompted to state the facts that support his claims Plaintiff
listed: “None Citizen,” “Color of the law,” and “Defimation Character.” 	Id. at 4. 	In another
portion of the complaint form requesting facts, Plaintiff writes: “color of the law,” “due process of
law,” and “Defimation Character.” 	Id. at 6. 	When asked for a description of official capacity
claims, Plaintiff wrote: “none citizen.” 	Id. at 7. 	Plaintiff also requests compensatory damages.
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Id. at 9.
In his Supplement, Plaintiff states:
My name is Bernard Bey. 	I am not a U.S. Citizen and on my passport it states do not
detain and do not mess with. 	I wanna bring up Justin Crane with drug task force and
Dormen with drug task force with Ollie AKA “frog” that he found 32.5 grams of meth on
the side of the road and when it came back weighing 25 grams. 	It only takes .0410 to test
and I want to know where the other 7 grams are. 	I want to bring a 5 million dollar lawsuit
on all 3 of them and there job TAKEN. 	Thank you for your help.
Big Judge Cullpepper has changed my name so why is it so hard to sentence me under the
right name. 	Not a U.S. Citizen. 	Color of the Law Due Process of the Law Defimation
Character.
(ECF No. 11, pp. 1-2).
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
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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
First an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint rendering the original
complaint without any legal effect. 	In re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000).
This means that the Court will only consider the claims in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 10) and its Supplement (ECF No. 11). 	It will not reference or relate back to the original
Complaint or First Amended Complaint to supplement, augment, or otherwise provide context to
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Supplement. 	Further, “[a]lthough pro se pleadings
are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with relevant rules
of procedural and substantive law.” 	Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 373 (8th Cir. 1983).
Moreover, Plaintiff was advised of this procedure in the Court’s Order to file his Second Amended
Complaint. 	(ECF No. 7). 	Accordingly, the Court will screen those allegations made by Plaintiff
in his Second Amended Complaint and Supplement only.
Plaintiff names James Singleton, Al, Justin Crane, Dorman, and Ollie in his Second
Amended Complaint and Supplement. 	(ECF Nos. 10-11). 	However, as indicated in the
background section above, Plaintiff is not clear as to what constitutional violations he is making
against each Defendant. 	The best interpretation the Court can make on Plaintiff’s third attempt
at asserting his claims are: (1) Defendants Singleton and Al violated his due process rights because
he is not a citizen of the United States (ECF No. 10, p. 4, 6); (2) Defendants Singleton and Al
defamed Plaintiff’s character; and (3) Defendants Crane, Dorman, and Ollie somehow violated
Plaintiff’s rights related to methamphetamines on the side of the road (ECF No. 11, pp. 1-2).
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
First, slander, defamation, and humiliation, while unprofessional and distasteful conduct,
do 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). 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim of
defamation fails as a matter of law.
As to Plaintiff’s reference to his status as a non-citizen of the United Sates, Plaintiff has
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible constitutional claim. 	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, 780 F.2d at 1337. 	Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not raise a
constitutional claim. 	Plaintiff merely states he is not a citizen, (ECF No. 6), and his passport reads
“Do not Detain,” (ECF No. 11). 	The Court will not engage in speculation as to what he could be
trying to allege. 	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”). 	For
the same reasoning, Plaintiff’s claims against Crane, Dorman, and Ollie must fail. 	The Court
cannot speculate as to what Plaintiff is claiming regarding the methamphetamines on the side of
the road. 	Id.
Furthermore, if Plaintiff is attempting to gain relief from his criminal conviction and
imprisonment with his claims regarding the methamphetamines and his status as a non-citizen his
claims still fail as a matter of law. 	Plaintiff may not use Section 1983 as a substitute for habeas
relief, instead, he must pursue such claims through the proper avenue of 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
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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)).
Additionally, while it is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks, if he seeks damages for an
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, such claims 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). 	Plaintiff
has produced no evidence or allegations in his complaint to meet the Heck requirements.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended: this case be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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 15th day of May 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04007-SOH Document 13 Filed 05/15/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>