Hall v. Jackson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JAMES A. HALL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 3:24-cv-03043-TLB-MEF
JUDGE SCOTT JACKSON
(19th Judicial District), et. al. 	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 Timothy L. Brooks, 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. § 1915(e)(2).
Under this provision, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a Plaintiff seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 23, 2024. (ECF No. 2). The Complaint centers
on an Arkansas Department of Children and Family Services case involving his grandchild. (Id.
at 5). 	It also references a petition for a protective order filed against him in Carroll County,
Arkansas. 	(Id.). 	Based on his allegations, Plaintiff is unhappy with how these cases are
proceeding. Plaintiff names a wide variety of Defendants, including Arkansas judges and a court
clerk, numerous employees of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, the Governor of
Arkansas, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.
(Id. at 2-5). Plaintiff believes that the judge and attorneys in the state cases have “shown extreme
Case 3:24-cv-03043-TLB Document 6 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
prejudice” against him. (Id. at 6). He alleges the Governor has failed to reform the Department
of Human Services and failed in her oversight of the agency. (Id. at 7).
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory order stating that Defendants have all violated the United
States Constitution, and an injunction compelling all Defendants to recuse and disqualify
themselves in any matter involving himself or any of his biological children and grandchildren
“permanently and forever.” He further seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 8).
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 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
Case 3:24-cv-03043-TLB Document 6 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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. 	ANALYSIS
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 	“Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (cleaned up). “The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (West). Plaintiff has identified no cognizable federal source of law for any of
his claims. Instead, his allegations are based only on his displeasure with the proceedings in two
Arkansas state cases involving Arkansas state law. Thus, this Court does not have federal question
jurisdiction over these cases. Neither does the Court have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff and the
named individual Defendants are all identified as Arkansas citizens.0F
1 	“Diversity jurisdiction
requires complete diversity, that is where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where
any plaintiff holds citizenship.” Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP v. Lewis, 40 F.4d 830, 839 (8th Cir.
2022) (cleaned up). 	Further, the inclusion of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Judicial
Discipline and Disability Commission as Defendants destroys diversity of citizenship, which must
be between citizens of different states. “[I]t is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen
... of another state is not between citizens of different states.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State
of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)). “Nor is an entity that is merely an alter ego or arm of a
1 The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff was advised of the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction in Hall v. Garrison, Case No. 3:22-cv-03066-TLB. In that case, Plaintiff attempted to
challenge the interpretation of a prenuptial agreement concerning child custody after a divorce.
Case 3:24-cv-03043-TLB Document 6 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
State a citizen for purposes of” diversity jurisdiction. Pub. Sch. Ret. System of Missouri v. State
St. Bank & Tr. Co., 640 F.3d 821, 826 (8th Cir. 2011).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
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 16th day of December 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-03043-TLB Document 6 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>