Birotte v. Johnson County Sheriff's Office et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CHARMANT BIROTTE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:25-cv-02130-TLB-MEF
JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
LAMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CASEY JACKIMORE
(Russellville Police Department);
ARKANSAS, STATE OF
(State, County, and City Police Departments);
ERVIN F. CLOKEY
(Arkansas State Police);
CHASE MELDER (ASP);
PACEL MEEKS (ASP);
ADRIENNE BELCHER (ASP);
CARTER JOE (ASP);
TED JONES (ASP);
DEPUTY MIKE BROWN
(Pope County Sheriff’s Office);
DESTON LINKOUS
(Pope County Sheriff’s Office);
RODNEY MCNESSE
(Pope County Sheriff’s Office);
STACIE RHOADS (ASP);
BARTLETT JAKE;
LT. JACOB YARBROUGH 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
for the purpose of preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the case will automatically
be reassigned to Chief United States District Timothy L. Brooks and referred to the undersigned
for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3).
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 9, 2025. (ECF
No. 2). 	It was transferred to this District on October 15, 2025. 	(ECF No. 4). 	On October 20,
2025, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address
deficiencies in his initial Complaint. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff submitted his Amended Complaint
on November 12, 2025. (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) Pine
Bluff Unit, but his claims center on a police chase with Plaintiff driving a tractor-trailer truck and
traversing Johnson and Pope Counties. 	Research by the Court indicates that Plaintiff was
convicted in Pope County of aggravated assault, criminal mischief in the second degree, and felony
fleeing in a vehicle or conveyance with a substantial danger of death in State v. Birotte, 58CR-23-
523 on June 24, 2025.0F
1 Plaintiff has an active appeal for the case.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 5, 2023, excessive force was applied against him because his
skin color is black. (ECF No. 10 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clokey accused Plaintiff
of trying to hit him on Interstate 40 from Johnson County. 	He alleges Defendants Melder and
Linkous shot his tractor trailer truck 18 times or more. (Id.). Plaintiff states Defendant Bartlett
Jake was “involved in the shooting.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff also alleges pepper spray and spike strips
were used against him. 	(Id. at 4). 	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Brown shot him because he was
black while he was naked with his hands up after he had been pepper-sprayed. (Id.). He alleges
Defendant McNeese used a spike strip against him. 	Plaintiff includes the name Lt. Jacob
Yarbrough but makes no allegations of fact against him. (Id.). He notes that the police report said
that Defendant Linkous is the individual who shot him while he was completely naked. (Id.). He
1 Available at SearchAR Courts (last accessed Feb. 7, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
alleges he was then taken to St. Mary Hospital for his injuries and to be tested for DWI. (Id.). He
alleges their body camera footage was suppressed in his trial. (Id.).
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants for this claim in their individual and official
capacities. 	(Id.). 	In support of his official capacity claim, he states “discrimination and racism
base on black people.” (Id.). Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages. (ECF
No. 10 at 9). Plaintiff asks this Court to give him the justice he needs to move on with his life.
(Id.). 	He also asks for a full federal investigation of the Arkansas State Police and all levels of
Arkansas police, including sheriffs and city police. (Id.). He states that discrimination and racism
were involved in the matter against him because he is Black.
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
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
vindicating 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
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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
A. 	Johnson County Sheriff’s Office,
Lamar Police Department, and State of Arkansas Police Departments
Sheriff’s offices and police departments are not persons or legal entities subject to suit
under § 1983. See Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (jails are not legal
entities amenable to suit); see also Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th
Cir. 1992) (stating that “departments or subdivisions” of local government are not “juridical
entities suable as such”); De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, 18 F. App’x 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001)
(affirming district court dismissal of county jail and sheriff’s department as parties because they
are not suable entities); Zar v. S.D. Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists, 976 F.2d 459, 464 (8th Cir.
1992) (state departments not “persons” under § 1983). 	Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against these
offices and departments should be dismissed.
B. 	Defendants Casey Jackimore, Pacel Meeks,
Adrienne Belcher, Carter Joe, Ted Jones, Stacie Rhoads and Lt. Jacob Yarbough
Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim against these Defendants.
“Liability under Section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation
of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 370 (1976)). Thus, to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim, a complaint must set forth
specific factual allegations showing what each named defendant allegedly did, or failed to do, that
allegedly violated the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged a causal link
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
between any of the Defendants and his claims. See Martin, 780 F.2d 1337 (even a pro se Plaintiff
must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim).
Plaintiff lists Casey Jackimore, Pacel Meeks, Adrienne Blecher, Carter Joe, Ted Jones, and
Stacie Rhoads as Defendants in the caption of the case, but he makes no mention them in the body
of the Amended Complaint. Merely listing a defendant in a case caption is insufficient to support
a claim against the defendant. Krych v. Hass, 83 Fed. App’x 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Potter
v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (noting that court properly dismissed
pro se complaint that was silent as to defendant except for his name appearing in caption)).
Plaintiff lists the name of Lt. Jacob Yarbough in the body of his Amended Complaint, but
he makes no factual allegation against him. See Martin, 780 F.2d 1337 (even a pro se Plaintiff
must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim).
C. 	Excessive Force
The Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard governs a claim that an officer
used excessive force “in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure.’”
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1980); see also Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d
491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009). The test for assessing whether the violation of the right to be free from
excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is “whether the amount of force used was objectively
unreasonable under the particular circumstances.” Vester v. Hallock, 864 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir.
2017) (quotation marks omitted).
The Courts have recognized that to conduct an arrest, some degree of force is necessary.
Therefore, the fact that force is used during an arrest does not, ipso facto, establish a Fourth-
Amendment violation. Crumley v. City of St. Paul, 324 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized … the right to make an arrest … necessarily carries
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
1. 	Defendant Ervin F. Clokey
Plaintiff’s sole allegation against Defendant Clokey is that he accused Plaintiff of trying to
hit him with his tractor trailer truck on Interstate 40. Plaintiff makes no allegation of any physical
force used against him by Clokey.
2. 	Defendants Chase Melder, Linkous, Bartlett Jake, and McNeese
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Melder, Linkous, and Defendant Jake shot his truck at
least 18 times. He also alleges that Defendant McNeese employed spike strips to stop his truck.
Based on Plaintiff’s complaint allegation, an officer involved in this incident believed that Plaintiff
had attempted to hit him with his tractor-trailer truck on Interstate 40. In State v. Birotte, 58CR-
23-523, Plaintiff was found guilty of felony fleeing in a Vehicle or Conveyance with Substantial
Danger of Causing Death or Serious Physical Injury pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-54-125(d)(2).
The Court will interpret Plaintiff’s claims to allege that Defendants Melder and Jake shot
at his tractor trailer truck while he was attempting to flee arrest and came close enough to an officer
during that flight that the officer believed he had tried to hit him. Firing shots at a vehicle in such
circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See, LeFever v. Dawson Cnty. Sheriff's
Dept., 109 F.4th 1100, 1111 (8th Cir. 2024) (60-70 shots fired at a fleeing suspect’s truck as he
backed toward officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment, particularly in the light of suspect’s
previous behavior). Likewise, the use of the spike strips by Defendant McNeese does not violate
the Fourth Amendment. 	“[A] police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car
chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even
when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.” Cheeks v. Belmar, 162 F.4th
899, 905 (8th Cir. 2025) (finding that the use of a PIT maneuver to stop a fleeing suspect did not
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
violate the Fourth Amendment because “[s]uspects fleeing from police in vehicles pose a generally
inherent danger to the public, ‘even when no bystanders or other motorists are immediately
present.’”). 	Indeed, there is some question as to whether the use of spike strips constitutes a
seizure. See, U.S. v. Washington, No. 422CR260JARJMB, 2023 WL 9064525, at *4, FN 5 (E.D.
Mo. Nov. 9, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:22CR00260 JAR, 2024 WL 35997
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2024). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants should be dismissed.
3. 	Defendants Mike Brown and Deston Linkous
Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants Brown and Linkous shot him while he was naked
and had been pepper-sprayed does state a plausible claim for excessive force at this early stage of
the case. Because these sole remaining Defendants are identified as employees of the Pope County
Sheriff’s Office, the interests of justice would be best served by transferring this case back to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants except Mike Brown and Deston Linkous be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and those Defendants be TERMINATED
from the case.
2. 	Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force against Defendants Mike Brown and Deston
Linkous remain for service and further review.
3. 	The case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division,
upon adoption of 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
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
objections may result in a 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 11th day of February 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02130-DCF Document 12 Filed 02/11/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>