Seadorf v. Damante et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ARTHUR WILLIAM SEADORF, SR. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:24-cv-02035-PKH-MEF
SHERIFF JIM DAMANTE
(Crawford County, AR);
OFFICER JONATHAN STROUD
(Crawford County Sheriff’s Department);
BOOKING OFFICER REED INGRAM
(Crawford County Detention Center) 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, Senior 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.0F
1
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 18, 2024. (ECF No. 1). On March 26, 2024, the
Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address deficiencies
in his Complaint. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff did so April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) North Central Unit, but his
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 2:24-cv-02035-TLB Document 15 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Complaint centers on his interactions with employees of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Office and
Detention Center.
For Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested and falsely imprisoned for charges
that were, in fact, brought against his son, Arthur William Seadorf, Jr. 	(ECF No. 10 at 4). 	He
alleges Defendants were informed of the mistaken identity, but they ignored him. 	He further
alleges they have refused to provide paperwork and are now attempting to engage in a cover-up of
their actions. 	(Id.). 	Review of publicly available state court records indicates significant case
history for the Seadorf name, as well as cases where the suffix Sr. or Jr. is not indicated on the
case docket. Plaintiff names all three Defendants for this claim. (Id.).
For Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care for a broken hip in
“November, 2020.” 	(ECF No. 10 at 6). 	For Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges cruel and unusual
punishment, also in November 2020. (Id. at 7). As grounds for the cruel and unusual punishment,
he alleges he was placed in a suicide cell without his crutches, was denied food because it was
placed in the trap door with Defendants knowing Plaintiff could not ambulate to reach the food,
was denied water, and fell when he tried to use the toilet. (Id. at 8). He alleges he fell trying to
meet his needs, was found unconscious in the cell, and was taken to the hospital. (Id.). Hospital
staff told him he would have died if he had not been brought in for care. (Id.).
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants for all claims in their individual capacity. (ECF
No. 10 at 5, 7, 8). He seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other relief. (Id. at 9).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged 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
Case 2:24-cv-02035-TLB Document 15 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 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.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). The complaint must, however, still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Second and Third claims are barred by the statute of limitations for § 1983.
Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitation. Instead, causes of action under § 1983
are governed by “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.” 	Goodman v.
Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660 (1987) (§ 1981 case). See also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.
261, 268 (1985) (§ 1983 case); Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 265-266 (8th Cir. 1996) (§ 1985 case).
Case 2:24-cv-02035-TLB Document 15 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
In Arkansas, this is the three-year personal injury statute of limitations, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-
105(3) (2005). See Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-
105(3) is the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases). 	Plaintiff alleges his rights were
violated in November 2020, but he did not file this case until March 18, 2024, more than three
years past the last day of November 2020. As such, his Second and Third claims under § 1983 are
time-barred.1F
2
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Claims Two and Three be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further recommended that Plaintiff’s Claim One remain for further
review.
Referral Status: This case should remain referred for all matters not recommended for
dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
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 23rd day of May 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 Plaintiff’s first claim may be time-barred as well, as the Amended Complaint suggests one
incarceration arising from the alleged false arrest and imprisonment, but Plaintiff alleges that claim
one occurred in “2021,” and he states that the “Crawford County Sheriff refuses to give this info
…” (ECF No. 10 at 4). Accordingly, claim one survives screening but may be subject to a statute
of limitations defense.
Case 2:24-cv-02035-TLB Document 15 Filed 05/23/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>