Turner v. Prince

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
HENRY DARNELL TURNER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06070-SOH-MEF
BRANDY PRINCE (Mailroom Supervisor) 	DEFENDANT
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 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 must 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 May 20, 2024. (ECF No. 1). He alleges that on January
11, 2024, Defendant Prince mishandled or destroyed two copies of his habeas corpus paperwork.
(Id. at 4). Plaintiff describes this as “deliberate negligence, prejudice, and a retaliatory act.” (Id.).
Plaintiff does not describe why Defendant Prince might be retaliating against him. Plaintiff does
not allege that his habeas case was dismissed or that he suffered any legal detriment because of
this mail incident. Instead, he alleges that the incident “posed a serious detrimental obstruction
against my pursuit for the stature of justice. I was denied the right to address the discrepancies to
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:24-cv-06070-JTS Document 8 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
challenge and bring about social change while Brandy Prince impeded my political expression.”
(Id. at 4-5).
Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant Prince in her individual capacity. (Id. at 5). He seeks
compensatory damages “for the loss of destroyed property, deprivations, time consumption and
the violating of any constitutional right.” (Id. at 10-11). Plaintiff further adds that Warden Byers
found his grievance about the incident to be with merit, but the grievance response did not establish
either the location of his mail or what actions would be taken against Defendant Prince by the
Arkansas Division of Correction. (Id.). He adds that “[r]elief if granted will deter Brandy Prince
and others within the department from desecrating the core values and the inherited rights of those
incarcerated.” 	(Id. at 10). 	Finally, he states that “[r]eared in a free state of democracy as an
american it’s my obligation to challenge policies of injustice as well as the badge of significance
that’s worn by those doing wrong.” (Id.).
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
Case 6:24-cv-06070-JTS Document 8 Filed 07/23/24 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
A. 	Denial of Access to Courts
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible denial of access to courts claim. The Supreme Court has
held “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to
assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with
adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1997)). 	Nevertheless, the
Supreme Court “did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance.”
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 	Instead, prison officials must provide “some means for ensuring a
reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights
to the courts.” 	Bear v. Fayram, 650 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). 	These means may include but are not limited to prison libraries; jailhouse
Case 6:24-cv-06070-JTS Document 8 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
lawyers; private lawyers on contract with the prison; or some combination of these and other
methods. Id.
An inmate cannot prevail on an access-to-courts claim unless he can demonstrate that he
suffered prejudice or actual injury resulting from the prison officials’ conduct. 	See Lewis, 518
U.S. at 351-52; see also Farver v. Vilches, 155 F.3d 978, 979-80 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam);
Klinger v. Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 609, 617 (8th Cir. 1997) (to prevail on access-to-courts claim,
inmate must show actual injury or prejudice even if denial of access to library is complete and
systematic); McMaster v. Pung, 984 F.2d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 1993). “To prove a violation of the
right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish the state has not provided an
opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s sentence or conditions of confinement in
a court of law, which resulted in actual injury, that is, the hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably
meritorious underlying legal claim.’” 	Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation and citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he suffered any prejudice or actual injury because
of Defendant Prince’s conduct. Instead, he alleges only that he lost property and time and was not
able to bring about social change. As such, he has failed to state a plausible denial of access to
courts claim.
B. 	Interference with Legal Mail
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible legal mail tampering claim. Tampering with legal mail
can implicate both the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the First Amendment right of access
to the courts. 	The right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment encompasses the right to have
prison officials open and inspect privileged legal mail in the inmate’s presence. 	Wolff v.
Case 6:24-cv-06070-JTS Document 8 Filed 07/23/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 529, 576-77 (1974). Privileged mail is narrowly defined as mail to or from
an inmate’s attorney and identified as such. 	Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997). Plaintiff does not allege that the mail in question was to or from his attorney. As such, he
has failed to state a plausible legal mail tampering claim.
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 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 (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.
Referral 	Status: 	This 	case 	should 	not 	remain 	referred, 	as 	all 	matters 	have 	been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
DATED this 23rd day of July 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06070-JTS Document 8 Filed 07/23/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>