Smith v. Cox et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
LEARBURY SHUNDRELL SMITH 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04083-SOH-BAB
SHERIFF JEFF BLACK; DEPUTY SHERIFF
CODY HENSLEY; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
RAMI COX; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
SHANE BERRYMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
JESSICA WISE; POLICE OFFICER EDDIE WISE;
and DEPUTY SHERIFF CULLEN MATLOCK 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Learbury Shundrell Smith, currently an inmate of the Lafayette County Jail, 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 Application”) on August 2, 2024. 	(ECF Nos. 1, 2). 	The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Application on the same day. 	(ECF No. 3).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes two claims and lists eight Defendants from Lafayette
County. 	(ECF No. 1, pp. 2-3). 	Plaintiff uses the Court’s Section 1983 Complaint Form to submit
his claims. 	Specifically, Plaintiff list the following Defendants under the “Defendant(s)
Information” section of the Complaint form: (1) Sheriff Jeff Black; (2) Deputy Sheriff Cody
Hensley; (3) Jail Administrator Rami Cox; (4) Correctional Officer Shane Berryman; (5)
Correction Officer Jessica Wise; (6) Police Officer Eddie Wise; and (7) Deputy Sheriff Cullen
Matlock. 	(ECF No. 1, pp. 2, 3, 5). 	Plaintiff also names Dr. Davis within his Claim Two. 	(ECF
No. 1, p. 8). 	The Complaint form also prompts Plaintiff to list each Defendant involved in each
of his claims. 	Plaintiff indicates Defendants Berryman, Matlock, Cox, Jessica and Eddie Wise,
Sheriff Black and Hensley were involved in his Claim One, and Defendants Cox and Davis were
involved in his Claim Two. 	(ECF No. 1, pp. 4, 8).
However, when prompted to state the facts that support each claim Plaintiff only indicated
involvement of Defendants Cox, Berryman, Matlock, and Davis in his claims. 	In Claim One
Plaintiff states: Defendant Cox ordered Defendant Berryman to go into D-Pod and use “chemical
deterrent” on Plaintiff on June 11, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1, p. 6). 	Plaintiff goes on to allege Defendant
Matlock then put him in “Isolation.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff was left in isolation for at least two hours while
begging for a shower and medical treatment. 	Plaintiff claims he was laughed at, called names,
and forced to endure chemical burns. 	From Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is unclear if he was ever
given the chance to shower or otherwise wash off the “chemical deterrent.” 	However, Plaintiff
does not state any other Defendants played any part in the incident on June 11, 2024. 	Id. 	Plaintiff
claims this incident was an abuse of power and excessive force in violation of his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 	Id.
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff alleges Claim One against Defendants in their individual and official capacities
but does not allege any facts related to the official capacity claim. 	Id. at 7.
In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Cox and Davis violated his constitutional rights
by denying him medical care for his tooth. 	Id. at 8. 	Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he submitted
requests for dental care to Defendant Cox four times from June 30, 2024 through July 18, 2024.
In these requests, Plaintiff stated he was in extreme pain, and could not eat or sleep. 	Defendant
Cox responded that she put the request in Defendant Davis’s doctor folder. 	(ECF No. 1, pp. 9-
13). 	Plaintiff does not name any other Defendants with regards to his Claim Two. 	Id.
For his official capacity claim relating to Claim Two Plaintiff claims:
According to written policy rules there’s a standard of medical care that needs to be handled
by medical authorities (licensed) due to the constant pain I was subjected to and the fact
that the staff knew about it. 	It would be an 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
and 14th Amendment Equal rights under the law.
(ECF No. 1, p. 14).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for mental and physical duress and to cover his
medical expenses. 	(ECF No. 1, p. 15).
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 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
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
“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)). 	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). 	)).
Plaintiff’s claims shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt the
Plaintiff’s complaint can prove no set of facts to support the plaintiff’s purported cause of action.
See Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has sufficiently stated Claim One for excessive force against Defendants
Berryman, Cox, and Matlock at this stage. 	Likewise, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated Claim Two
against Defendants Cox and Davis for denial of medical care at this stage. 	However, he has failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Black, Hensley, Jessica Wise,
and Eddie Wise. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff has not stated an official capacity claim under either claim
upon which relief can be granted.
A. Personal Liability
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendants acted
under color of state law, and that the actor violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
(8th Cir. 1999). 	Furthermore, the deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not
suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right under Section 1983. 	Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). 	Lastly, Defendants
must have been personally involved and caused the violation alleged. 	“Liability under section
1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. 	To establish
personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal
involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” 	Clemmons
v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128,
1132 (8th Cir. 2006).
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 violated the
Plaintiff's constitutionally protected rights. 	Plaintiff has failed to do this here against Defendants
Black, Hensley, Jessica Wise, and Eddie Wise and these Defendants should be dismissed.
B. Official Capacity
Plaintiff has also failed to state any official capacity claims against any Defendants.
Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his personal capacity, or in his official
capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his personal and his official
capacities. 	The type of conduct that is actionable and the type of defense available depend on
whether the claim is asserted against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. 	See
Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 	“Claims against
individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims against the entity for which they
work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the
only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” 	Id.
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
While Plaintiff alleged there are policy and standards that medical providers should follow
he made no allegations that a policy, procedure, or custom of Lafayette County caused his
complained of incidents. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims fail to state cognizable
claims under Section 1983 and should be dismissed.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended: (1) all claims asserted against Defendants Black,
Hensley, Jessica Wise, and Eddie Wise 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 and said Defendants
be DISMISSED from this matter; and (2) all of Plaintiff’s official capacity claims 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. 	It is further recommended that the Complaint’s Claim One for
excessive force against Defendants Berryman, Cox, and Matlock and Claim Two against
Defendants Cox and Davis for denial of medical care for further consideration be ordered served
on these Defendants in their individual capacities.
Status of Referral: 	This case should remain referred.
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
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 13th day of September 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04083-SOH Document 9 Filed 09/13/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>