Lamb v. Branstetter et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BLAZE CONNOR LAMB 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06134-MEF
GARLAND COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER;
SUSAN BRAINSETTER (Deputy);
B. CANNON (Deputy);
INMATE JORDAN WARD;
INMATE PAYTON WICKLAND;
NURSE KAYLA;
NURSE JASON;
NURSE STANFORD;
DEPUTY SGT. ARBURY;
DEPUTY ANGEL;
DEPUTY TRENT;
INMATE JILLIAN; and
INMATE VERONICA 	DEFENDANTS
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,
for the purpose of preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the case will automatically
be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey and referred to the
undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)
and (3).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 15, 2024. (ECF
No. 2). 	It was transferred to this District on October 17, 2024. 	(ECF No. 6). 	On October 18,
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2024, the Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to submit a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
application and an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 10). When Plaintiff failed to submit either
document by the deadline, the Court entered Show Cause Orders on December 13, 2024. (ECF
Nos. 12, 13). Plaintiff submitted an IFP application and an Amended Complaint on December 19,
2024. (ECF No. 14, 15).
Because the IFP application did not have a completed certificate of inmate account, the
Court entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed IFP application on January
28, 2025. (ECF No. 17). When Plaintiff failed to submit his IFP application by the deadline, the
Court entered a Show Cause Order on February 26, 2025. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff submitted an
IFP application and was granted IFP status on March 3, 2025. (ECF No. 21).
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises five claims against 13 Defendants for the period
of September 15-20, 2023. For his first claim, Plaintiff names Defendants Brainsetter, Cannon,
Kayla, Jason, Arbury, Angel and Stanford. (ECF No. 14 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that while he was
incarcerated in the Garland County Detention Center awaiting court, the named Defendants “and
others all colluded together to attempt to kill” him. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
Brainsetter, Cannon and Stanford put “poison or drugs” in his food and tampered with his water.
(Id.). He alleges they “laughed and bragged and boasted” about their actions, and “tormented and
teased him.” (Id. at 6-7). He alleges they played a video of him being raped by their lieutenant on
their computers for other deputies as well as inmates. (Id. at 7). He alleges they brought other
people into the jail under false pretenses of “Public Intox” to introduce contraband. 	(Id.). 	He
alleges Defendant Brainsetter stated, “I don’t know what’s better . . . knowing he’s going to die,
or watching him get tortured to death.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Cannon stated, “He
knows what’s going on, he knows we got his ass, and there’s nothing he can do. (And laughed.)
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
And we’ll get way with it.” (Id.). He alleges Kayla, Jason, Arbury and Standford “teased” him as
well, calling him a faggot and disgusting and stating that he deserved what he was going to get.
(Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in both their official and individual capacities for this
claim. (Id.). For his official capacity claim, he alleges that the Garland County Detention Center
has widespread practice of cruel and unusual punishment towards inmates “of their choosing.”
(Id.). He alleges the staff at Garland County have violated his rights by watching a shift lieutenant
rape him, trying to poison him, and slandering his name and character. (Id.).
For his second claim, Plaintiff names Defendants Nurse Kayla and Nurse Jason. (ECF No.
14 at 8). Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Jason kept slipping medication under his door, but he does
not take medication. (Id.). After he told Nurse Jason and Kayla that he had been given poison or
drugs, they gave him medication that made him dizzy and throw up. (Id.). “At one point” Nurse
Kayla gave him something that tasted like chemicals that burned his tongue and mouth and gave
him blisters. (Id.). 	Nurse Jason told him he knew “he was going to get away with it” and called
him a faggot after watching a video of him being raped by the shift lieutenant. (Id.). Nurse Kayla
agreed with him. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in both their official and individual
capacities for this claim. (Id. at 9). For his official capacity claim, he alleges they watched him
be raped. 	They gave him intoxicating drugs and poisoned him. 	They teased him and mentally
tortured him. They showed the widespread practice of colluding with the deputies to cause him
harm. They slandered his name and character, and they refused him medical care. (Id.).
As his third claim, Plaintiff alleges that inmates Wickland and Payton attempted to kill
him. (ECF No. 14 at 9). He does not name any Garland County Defendant. He alleges Wickland
gave him drugs. He alleges a gun was brought into the jail to have him killed by Ward when others
failed to do so. 	(Id. at 10). 	Plaintiff alleges there are recorded phone call talking about Ward
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
trying to kill him “for the family” and camera footage showing him pointing a gun toward his cell.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges he was forced to hide behind a privacy wall. (Id.). He alleges Ward was
promised payment and bond from the deputies if he succeeded in killing him. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff
alleges the gun was brought in by another inmate and passed around by staff who is unknown to
him. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against these Defendant in their official capacity. (Id.).
For his fourth claim, Plaintiff names Defendants Brainsetter, Cannon, Arbury, Angel,
Trent, Jason and Kayla. (ECF No. 14 at 13). Plaintiff alleges that he was drugged and raped on
video by deputies. (Id.). He alleges he was forced to have sex with a male lieutenant of the jail
while the named Defendants watched and laughed and threatened him. 	He further alleged that
after eating a meal given to him by staff, he woke in the back of a car restrained by handcuffs. The
car contained Defendants Cannon, Jason, Angel, and Brainsetter. (Id.). He was brought inside a
house near the Oaklawn Casino Resort where Defendants Trent, Arkbury, Kaylas and others
unknown to him waited. (Id.). He was instructed to perform sexual acts and look like he really
enjoyed it, or he would be killed. (Id.). He was forced to receive oral sex and give a hand job to
a heavyset man he knew as a lieutenant. All of this was recorded, and they talked about how they
would show “all his bros.” (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in both their official and
individual capacities for this claim. (Id.). For his official capacity claim, Plaintiff alleges he was
raped, sexually battered and sexually assaulted by Garland County Deputies who made a video
recording of the acts to further violate him. (Id. at 14).
For his fifth claim, Plaintiff names Defendants Brainsetter, Cannon, Inmate Ward, Inmate
Wickland, Kayla, Jason, Stanford, Arbury, Trent and Angel. (ECF No. 14 at 14). Plaintiff alleges
that on September 19, 2023, the judge tried to push his court date back again. (Id.). Plaintiff spoke
to his public defender Tim Beckham, and stated he would sign anything, he just didn’t want to go
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
back to Garland County Detention Center. (Id.). He states he signed 10 years on 100% because
he was afraid to go back to that county jail. (Id.). He alleges every named Defendant in this case
contributed to him signing away 10 years of his life. 	(Id. at 15). 	Plaintiff proceeds against
Defendants in both their official and individual capacities for this claim, but he provides no
statement of official capacity claim. (Id.).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 14 at 11). Plaintiff wants
everyone involved, including those not currently named, to be criminally prosecuted. (Id.). He
wants a new court date in a new venue and a new plea deal. (Id.). He wants to be paid for the
mental and emotional torture he was forced to go through after getting raped and having it videoed.
(Id.). He also wants compensation for having his name and character trashed and being drugged
and poisoned. (Id.). He asks for $25 million because “these cops/deputies” tortured, raped and
attempted to murder him with full intention of getting the job done. (Id. at 11-12). He also asks
for personal security for the rest of his life once he is released so that he can have peace and
security. (Id. at 12). He wants a pardon and clemency from the state of Arkansas. (Id.). If not
released from the ADC he wants protective custody. (Id.). He wants $1,000 for every day he has
been in the ADC against his will after signing his plea deal on September 19, 2023. (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
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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
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. 	Garland County Detention Center
The Garland County Detention Center is not a person or a legal entity subject to suit under
§ 1983. 	See Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (jails are not legal
entities amenable to suit); see also Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th
Cir. 1992) (stating that “departments or subdivisions” of local government are not “juridical
entities suable as such”); De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, 18 F. App’x 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001)
(affirming district court dismissal of county jail and sheriff’s department as parties because they
are not suable entities).
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
B. 	Inmate Jillian and Inmate Veronica
Plaintiff’s claims against these two Defendants are subject to dismissal. “Liability under
Section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
370 (1976)). Thus, 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 allegedly
violated the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged a causal link between
Inmates Jillian and Veronica and his claims. See Martin, 780 F.2d 1337 (Even a pro se Plaintiff
must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim). Instead, he has merely listed their names in
the caption of the case. 	Merely listing a defendant in a case caption is insufficient to support a
claim against the defendant. Krych v. Hass, 83 F. App’x 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Potter v.
Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (noting that court properly dismissed pro
se complaint that was silent as to defendant except for his name appearing in caption)).
C. 	Inmate Wickland and Inmate Ward
Plaintiff’s claims against these two Defendants are subject to dismissal. A private person
can act under color of state law for the purposes of § 1983 only if they are “a willful participant in
joint action with the State or its agents.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). 	Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint fails to state that either Wickland or Ward had any interaction with any of
the named Defendants in this case. 	While the Court will liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s
complaint – and has done so in this case – the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support his
claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim that Inmates Ward and Wickland were willful participants in a
joint action with the named Defendants in this case.
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
D. 	Teasing, Taunting and Verbal Threats
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants teased, taunted, and verbally threatened him are subject
to dismissal. 	In general, “[v]erbal threats do not constitute a constitutional violation.” 	Martin,
780 F.2d at 1339. Similarly, taunts, name calling, and the use of offensive language does not state
a claim of constitutional dimension. 	McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993)
(inmate’s claims of general harassment and of verbal harassment were not actionable under §
1983); see also Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952, 955 (8th Cir. 2000) (abusive language or verbal
harassment is not, by itself, unconstitutional and will not support a civil rights cause of action).
E. 	Defamation
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants actions defamed his character are subject to dismissal.
Slander, defamation, and humiliation, while unprofessional and distasteful conduct, do not state a
constitutional violation. “[D]efamation, per se, is not actionable under section 1983.” Underwood
v. Pritchard, 638 F.2d 60, 62 (8th Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court has held that a person’s interest
in his reputation is not considered liberty or property protected by the due process clause. Paul v.
Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-12 (1976). 	In other words, the “Supreme Court has made clear that
federal courts are not to view defamatory acts as constitutional violations.” Boyanowski v. Capital
Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 2000).
F. 	Failure to Protect
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cannon, Jason, Angel, Brainsetter, Trent, Arbury, and
Kayla watched, laughed and threatened him while he was forced to engage in sexual activity with
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
an unnamed Garland County Lieutenant.0F
1 	Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, this states a
plausible failure to protect claim sufficient to survive screening.
G. 	Drugs and Poisoned Food – Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cannon, Brainsetter, Stanford, Arbury, Angel, Stanford
Kayla, and Jason put poison or drugs in his food and tampered in an unnamed manner with his
water. 	He also alleges that Defendants Kayla and Jason gave him medications he was not
prescribed, and one of them burned his tongue and made him dizzy and nauseous. Again, taking
Plaintiff’s allegations as true, this states a plausible conditions of confinement claim sufficient to
survive screening.
H. 	Denial of Medical Care
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Kayla and Jason refused him medical care. 	He does not
identify the medical condition for which he asked for medical care. 	The allegation, however,
occurs in the same paragraph as an allegation of rape. 	The Court will, therefore, infer that
Defendants Kayla and Jason denied him medical care after the alleged sexual assault. 	Taking
Plaintiff’s allegations as true, this states a plausible denial of medical care claim sufficient to
survive screening.
I. 	Involuntary Guilty Plea and Request for a Pardon and Clemency
Plaintiff indicates that he plead guilty to the crimes for which he was incarcerated in the
Garland County Detention Center. To the extent this claim could be interpreted to be one for an
unconstitutional conviction, it is, therefore, barred by the Heck doctrine. 	In Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages for “allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
1 Plaintiff also alleges that someone recorded the incident, but he does not identify any of the
named Defendants as the videographer.
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” is not cognizable until “the conviction
or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by
a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. 486-87. The Court noted that if a successful
claim would not demonstrate the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment, it should be
allowed to proceed. Plaintiff does not allege that his conviction has been favorably terminated.
His claim is, therefore, barred by the Heck doctrine.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. The Garland County Detention Center be TERMINATED as a Defendant in this case.
2. Plaintiff’s claims against Inmates Jillian, Veronica, Wickland and Ward be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and these Defendants be TERMINATED as Defendants in this case.
3. Plaintiff’s claims for teasing, taunting, and verbal threats be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff’s claims for defamation be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5. 	Plaintiff’s claim that his criminal conviction was unconstitutionally obtained be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants Cannon, Jason, Angel, Brainsetter,
Trent, Arbury, and Kayla regarding the alleged sexual assault by an unnamed Garland County
lieutenant remains for service and further review.
7. Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Cannon, Brainsetter,
Stanford, Arbury, Angel, Kayla, and Jason that they put drugs and/or poison in his food remains
for service and further review.
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 10 of 11 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
8. Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim against Defendants Kayla and Jason for denial
of medical care after the alleged sexual assault remains for service and further review.
Referral Status: This case should remain referred for all matters not 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 15th day of May 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 29 Filed 05/15/25 Page 11 of 11 PageID
#: <pageID>