Fargis, Jr v. Waxley

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
JOHN ALVIN FARGIS, JR. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:25-cv-01007-BAB
OFFICER T. WAXLEY 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	He proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Southwest Arkansas Community
Corrections Center a unit of the Arkansas Division of Community Correction.
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 this document
will be dispositive of certain of Plaintiff’s claims, this document will be filed as a Report and
Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District
Judge Susan O. Hickey. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
General Order 2024-02.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	Pursuant to § 1915A, 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. 	Upon consideration the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed.
Case 1:25-cv-01007-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/04/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendant Waxley, an officer of the El Dorado Police
Department, illegally entered his property and searched him without a warrant on August 15, 2021.
Plaintiff was arrested as a result of this search. 	Plaintiff claims his arrest was illegal and his
subsequent incarceration was false imprisonment. 	(ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff alleges his claims against Defendant Waxley in both his individual and official
capacity and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. 	Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. 	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) seeks
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 in 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 1:25-cv-01007-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/04/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). 	This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernible, 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.” 	Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). 	However, the complaint must still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. 	Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985).
III. 	DISCUSSION
In this case, a threshold issue is whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of
limitations. 	Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitation. 	Instead, causes of action
under § 1983 are governed by “the most appropriate or the most analogous state statute of
limitations.” 	Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). 	In
Arkansas, this is the three-year personal injury statute of limitations found in Ark. Code Ann. §
16-56-105(3). 	See Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cty., Ark., 758 F.3d 1038, 1044
(8th Cir. 2014). 	It is the standard rule that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and
present cause of action. 	Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007) (cleaned up); see also Rassier
v. Sanner, 996 F.3d 832, 836 (8th Cir. 2021) (“accrual occurs when the plaintiff can file suit and
obtain relief”).
According to the allegations of the Complaint, the actions Plaintiff complains of occurred
in July 2021. 	This case was filed on January 29, 2025, more than three years later. 	Clearly, the
claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. 	No plausible claims are stated.
Case 1:25-cv-01007-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/04/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that:
(1) the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted;
(2) Plaintiff is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and thus, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g)
strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration; and
(3) the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
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.
Status of Referral: 	The referral is terminated.
DATED this 4th day of March 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01007-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/04/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>