Sabbie v. Murphy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
PARADICE SABBIE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:26-cv-05013-CDC
SAM MURPHY 	DEFENDANT
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,
the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge 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). The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.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). For the reasons given below, the undersigned recommends that this case
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Paradice Sabbie is currently incarcerated at the Washington County Detention
Center (“WCDC”). On January 15, 2026, he filed this Complaint against a correctional officer at
WCDC named Sam Murphy. See ECF No. 1.
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 5:26-cv-05013-TLB Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff alleges that on September 18, 2025, while he and his cellmates were “serving time
on 23 and 1,” Officer Murphy asked Plaintiff’s cellmates if they wanted their hour of recreational
time. See id. at 4. (Plaintiff was apparently napping during this conversation.) See id. One of
Plaintiff’s cellmates responded that since they went first the previous day they were supposed to
go last today. See id. Officer Murphy responded “that’s true” and closed the door, but apparently
never returned that day to let them out for their hour of recreation. See id. When Plaintiff awoke,
he “worked out” and “built up a good sweat only for me not to get my hour out.” See id. He says
that as a result he “had to sleep sweaty in my rack for hours until [the] next day which could’ve
led to other harmful issues.” 	See id. 	Plaintiff claims that this amounts to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. 	See id. at 4–5. 	As relief, Plaintiff seeks $150,000.00 in punitive
damages. See 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
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).
Case 5:26-cv-05013-TLB Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
“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). 	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
Section 1983 was enacted to provide a “broad remedy for violations of federally protected
civil rights.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). To assert a claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that the action occurred under color of law; and
(2) that the action is a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th
Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged the deprivation of any federal right. The Eighth Circuit has
held that four days without bedding, clothing, legal mail, and hygienic supplies does not violate
the Constitution. See O’Leary v. Iowa State Men’s Reformatory, 79 F.3d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1996).
And although inmates “may have a liberty interest in some access to exercise,” even being
prevented from exercising for a period of thirty-seven days does not violate the Constitution,
though “thirty-seven days is perhaps pushing the outer limits of acceptable restriction.” Phillips
v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003). Similarly, and perhaps most directly on point, the
Eighth Circuit has held that “[d]enial of recreation for a short period, per se, is not a constitutional
violation,” and that accordingly suspension of an inmate’s yard privileges for thirteen days did not
Case 5:26-cv-05013-TLB Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
violate the constitution. See Knight v. Armontrout, 878 F.2d 1093, 1095–96 (8th Cir. 1989). The
restriction that Plaintiff alleges he suffered on September 18, 2025, is far less severe than the
restrictions endured by the plaintiffs in O’Leary, Phillips, and Knight—which themselves did not
rise to the level of any constitutional violation.
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/Petitioner
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 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 10th day of March 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-05013-TLB Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>