Medcalf v. Evans

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
WILLIAM G. MEDCALF 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06120-SOH-MEF
TRAVIS EVANS 	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 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 in the Eastern District of Arkansas on September 10, 2024.
(ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this District on September 11, 2024. (ECF No. 4). The Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address deficiencies in
his original Complaint, and he did so on October 18, 2024. (ECF No. 9).
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his rights through a breach
of contract and non-payment. 	(Id. at 4). 	Plaintiff alleges there was verbal agreement with a
handshake on March 24, 2023. 	(Id.). 	The agreement was terminated on April 4, 2024. 	(Id.).
Plaintiff alleges Defendant only paid him for six weeks of the contract and failed to provide
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:24-cv-06120-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
housing as agreed upon. 	(Id. at 4-5). 	He estimates he was not paid $19,500.00. 	(Id. at 5).
Defendant Evans is identified only as a “Milright” in Amity, Arkansas. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant Evans in his individual capacity. 	(Id.). 	He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff alleges the lack of payment “led to great
distress,” and he believes this distress led him to be where he is now – the Pike County Jail. (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
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
Case 6:24-cv-06120-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible § 1983 claim against Defendant Evans. 	A § 1983
complaint must allege that each Defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of
“rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42
U.S.C. § 1983. DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 1999). 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). Here, Plaintiff alleges that
he and Defendant Evans had a verbal work contract and Defendant Evans breached that contract,
causing Plaintiff to lose money. Nothing in these allegations permits the inference that Defendant
Evans was a state actor. 	Defendant Evans is described as a private individual, and there is no
mention of him acting in willful participation with a State or state agent. Thus, Plaintiff has failed
to state a plausible § 1983 claim.
Additionally, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims in this state
law breach of contract case. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (cleaned
up). 	“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (West). 	As discussed
above, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible federal constitutional claim. Nor has he invoked any
federal law or regulation in his Complaint. Thus, he has failed to allege any facts or identify any
federal law which would establish federal question jurisdiction. Finally, Plaintiff identifies both
Case 6:24-cv-06120-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
himself and Defendant Evans as Arkansas citizens. 	Thus, Plaintiff has not plead the essential
elements required for federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
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.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
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 25th day of November 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06120-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>