Baker v. Spencer et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
KYOMI BAKER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06147
OFFICER SAM SPENCER, et al 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Kyomi Baker, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff maintains her rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated by the Defendants.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on November 12, 2024. 	ECF No. 1. 	The case is before the
Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	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 this Report and
Recommendation.
I. 	Background:
Plaintiff has named as Defendants Officer Sam Spencer, in his individual capacity, and the
Hot Springs Police Department. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks damages against
Defendants alleging her civil rights were violated through an eviction from a public housing unit.
Id. 	The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in November 2012. 	Id.
II. 	Applicable Law:
Under the § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is obligated 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
Case 6:24-cv-06147-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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. §
1915(e)(2)(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). 	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)).
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).
III. 	Discussion:
Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of
a citizen’s “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United
States. 	To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) each defendant
acted under color of state law and that (2) he or she violated a right secured by the constitution.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999).
Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations. 	Instead, causes of action
under § 1983 are governed by the “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.”
Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660 (1987) (§ 1981 case). 	See also Wilson v. Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 268 (1985) (§ 1983 case); Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 265-266 (8th Cir. 1996) (§
1985 case). 	In Arkansas, this is the three-year personal injury statute of limitations, Ark. Code
Case 6:24-cv-06147-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Ann. 16-56-105(3). 	See Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (Ark. Code Ann. §
16-56-105(3) is the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases).
In this matter, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims are time-barred and should be dismissed. 	Plaintiff
claims arise from events that took place twelve years ago.0F
1
IV. 	Conclusion:
For the reasons stated above, I recommend Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed as it is barred
by the statute of limitations.
The Court further recommends, because of the Plaintiff’s continued disregard of this
Court’s Orders and her continued effort to pursue claims that have been previously dismissed, that
Plaintiff be barred from filing any further case in this District without submitting the required filing
fee at the time of the submission of the proposed complaint.
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 November 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 It is also noted that Plaintiff filed two prior cases in this Court which seem to involve the same allegations as those
in the instant Complaint. 	In those cases, Postley v. Housing Authority of Hot Springs, Arkansas, et al, No. 6:15-cv-
6120 and Postley v. Sam Spencer, et al, No. 6:17-cv-6081, Plaintiff named as Defendants, Sam Spencer along with
others. These two prior complaints were dismissed for reasons that included failure to prosecute, failure to comply
with an Order of the Court, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Case 6:24-cv-06147-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>