Ford v. Murray et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DEMARION TYRELL FORD 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:23-CV-06113-SOH-BAB
OFFICER MORGAN MURRAY (Police
Officer, Hot Springs Police Department)
DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 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 November 11, 2023. 	(ECF No. 1). 	That same day, the
Court entered an Order directing him to file a completed 	in forma pauperis 	(“IFP”) application.
(ECF No. 2). 	Plaintiff filed his IFP application and an Amended Complaint on November 29,
2023. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). He was granted IFP status on November 30, 2023. (ECF No. 6).
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Garland County Detention Center. (ECF No. 4 at
2). 	He alleges that on March 13, 2023, Defendant Murray and his officers arrested him for
“something that was not mine,” ignored evidence concerning another individual on the scene,
1 	Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:23-cv-06113-SOH Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
ignored the statements of a witness, and employed excessive force in arresting him. (Id. at 5). He
alleges he has been falsely imprisoned for 8 months, and the Judge and his Public Defender threw
away the motions he sent them. 	(Id. at 4-5, 7). 	He alleges he is being falsely imprisoned on
charges of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of firearms by a certain
person, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a Schedule I/II controlled substance.
(Id. at 13). He seeks his immediate release and compensation in the amount of $5.5 million dollars
for his incarceration. (Id. at 5).
Review of Plaintiff’s state court record indicates 	State v. Damarion Tyrell Ford, Case No.
26CR-23-252, is currently an open case in Garland County Circuit Court.1F
2 	Plaintiff accurately
listed the criminal charges in his Complaint. A Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that the drugs
and firearms were not in Defendant’s possession has been filed in the case.
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
2 	Available at Arkansas Court Connect. (last accessed Dec. 20, 2023).
Case 6:23-cv-06113-SOH Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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). 	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
Pursuant to 	Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts are required to abstain
from hearing cases when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates
important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal questions presented.” 	Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 	Fuller
v. Ulland, 	76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)). 	Ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate the
important state interest of enforcing state criminal law, and constitutional claims relating to that
proceeding should be raised there. 	Meador v. Paulson, 385 Fed. App’x 613 (8th Cir. 2010); 	see
also Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc. Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010). “If all three
questions are answered affirmatively, a federal court should abstain unless it detects ‘bad faith,
harassment, or some extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.’”
Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Ft. Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting 	Middlesex
Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982)).
Case 6:23-cv-06113-SOH Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
When only equitable relief is sought, 	Younger 	“contemplates the outright dismissal of the
federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and federal to the state courts.” 	Gibson
v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973) (a § 1983 case involving only injunctive relief, and not
damages). 	In cases where damages are sought, the Eighth Circuit has noted that the Supreme
Court instructs that traditional abstention principles generally require a stay as the appropriate
mode of abstention rather than a dismissal. 	Night Clubs, Inc., 163 F. 3d at 481. In 	Quackenbush
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996), the Court said:
In those cases in which we have applied traditional abstention principles to damages
actions, we have only permitted a federal court to withhold action until the state
proceedings have concluded, that is, we have permitted federal courts applying
abstention principles in damages actions to enter a stay, but we have not permitted
them to dismiss the action altogether.
Id. at 730.
Here, Plaintiff’s claims are intertwined with his state criminal case, 	State v. Damarion
Tyrell Ford, 	Case No. 26CR-23-252, which is currently an open case in Garland County, Arkansas,
Circuit Court As this case is still pending, the 	Younger 	abstention doctrine applies. Plaintiff does
not contend he cannot raise his claims in the state criminal case. And Plaintiff has not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that suggest this Court should interfere with the state criminal
case. The state clearly has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws. There are important
interests in allowing state courts to administer their own cases. Plaintiff may raise all of the claims
he seeks to assert here in his ongoing state criminal proceeding.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) be
STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s state
criminal case. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days after the final resolution of his pending criminal
Case 6:23-cv-06113-SOH Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
case to file a Motion to Reopen this case. Failure to file the Motion by the deadline will result in
the summary dismissal of this case.
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 	9th day of January 2024.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:23-cv-06113-SOH Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>