Roberts v. Butler

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CLIFTON LEE ROBERTS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04091-SGS
GINA BUTLER 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Clifton Lee Roberts, currently an inmate of the Little River County Detention
Center (“LRCDC”) in Ashdown, Arkansas, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	The
case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 	However, because not all parties
to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document will be
dispositive of at least some of Plaintiff’s claims, this document will be filed as a Report and
Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge
Susan O. Hickey. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
General Order 2024-02.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). 	Pursuant to § 1915A(a), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on October 28, 2025 (ECF No. 1) and his Amended
Complaint on November 18, 2025 (ECF No. 6). 	Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
on October 28, 2025. 	(ECF No. 3).
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff only names one Defendant, Gina Butler, the Jail
Administrator at the LRCDC. 	(ECF No. 6, p. 2). 	Plaintiff claims that on September 30, 2025,
Defendant Butler violated his “Equal Rights and Protections under the Constitution of the United
States.” 	(ECF No. 6, p. 4). 	Specifically, Plaintiff claims:
Gina Butler the Jail Administrator dropped a methamphetamine pipe used for the purpose
of smoking methamphetamines from the pants leg of her jeans in the middle of court. 	The
jail is saying that it came out of my shackles that were around my ankles. 	The jailer Steve
Butler was walking me out of the courtroom back to the jail and the pipe fell on the floor
from Gina Butlers pants leg. 	I seen it fall from her jeans. 	They haven’t charged anyone
yet but there are accusations from jail staff saying it feel from the shackles I was wearing.
I wasn’t physically injured, but I want the responsible party charged under equal rights for
every citizen in this country I fear that if it isn’t investigated properly and charged that the
staff here will dismiss it or charge me with the drug paraphernalia charge.
(ECF No. 6, pp. 4-5).
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages and for Defendant Butler to be investigated and fired. 	Id.
at 9. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff states:
All citizens in this county are supposed to be equal but this county is in a habit of habitually
charging people with crimes that were not committed or planting evidence. 	I want this to
be investigated properly . . . and the rest of the jail staff to be held accountable. 	Either she
was planning on planting the pipe on someone or she was using the pipe for herself. 	She
should be hair follicle tested by an outside organization and if she fails then should be fired
and investigated.
(ECF No. 6, p. 9).
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 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) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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. 	In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988); Spencer
v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987). 	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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendants acted
under color of state law and that the actor violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009
(8th Cir. 1999). 	Furthermore, the deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not
suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right under Section 1983. 	Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). 	Lastly, Defendants
must have been personally involved and caused the violation alleged. 	“Liability under section
1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. 	To establish
personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal
involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” 	Clemmons
v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128,
1132 (8th Cir. 2006)). 	Plaintiff’s claims shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears
beyond a doubt the Plaintiff’s complaint can prove no set of facts to support the plaintiff’s
purported cause of action. 	See Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 740 (8th
Cir. 2001).
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
“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
Before the Court can consider whether Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Section 1983 claim,
it must first consider whether Plaintiff has standing to bring his claims. “[S]tanding is a
jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the merits of a suit.” 	Pratt v.
Helms, 73 F.4th 592, 594 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d
567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007)). 	“The plaintiff bears the burden to allege an injury in fact, causation,
and redressability.” 	Id. (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 	“To
support standing, an injury must be legally and judicially cognizable.” 	Id. (quoting Va. House of
Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. 658, 666 (2019)).
Here, 	Plaintiff 	claims 	there 	have 	been 	accusations 	made 	against 	him 	that 	a
methamphetamine pipe in the courtroom floor was his, but no charges have been filed against him
regarding said pipe. 	Plaintiff goes on to assert he is fearful criminal charges will be filed against
him 	if 	Defendant 	Butler 	is 	not 	investigated 	and 	charged 	with 	the 	drug 	paraphernalia.
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Butler intended to plant the drug paraphernalia on
Plaintiff. 	(ECF No. 6, pp. 4-5). 	Plaintiff also states, when prompted in the Court’s Complaint
Form, that the constitutional right he believes were violated was his “Equal Rights and Protections
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
under the Constitution of the United States.” 	(ECF No. 6, p. 4). 	Liberally construing Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, the Court interprets his Section 1983 claim to allege his rights—pursuant to
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—were violated by these accusations or
by Defendant Butler’s purported framing attempt.
First, assuming Plaintiff was a crime victim as alleged for the purposes of this Report and
Recommendation only, the Court notes the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
has recently held that a crime victim does not have standing to sue public officials for their failure
to investigate an alleged crime. 	Pratt, 73 F.4th at 594. 	This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction
to consider Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant tried to plant the drug paraphernalia on him and
his claim some unnamed official failed to investigate this attempted framing. 	Thus, this claim
should be dismissed. 	Additionally, it is well settled that “a crime victim cannot sue a government
official for failing to prosecute his assailant.” 	Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861(8th Cir. 2009).
Furthermore, even if Plaintiff had standing to pursue his claim, he has failed to state a
cognizable claim pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause. 	To establish a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, the plaintiff “must show that he was treated differently than other persons who
were ‘in all relevant respects similarly situated.’” 	Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 558
F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bills v. Dahm, 32 F.3d 333, 335 (8th Cir. 1994)). 	Here,
Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege any facts suggesting that he was treated differently than those
similarly situated to him. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim fails as a matter of law.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended the case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
and that Plaintiff be warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Referral Status: Referral should be terminated.
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 11th day of December 2025.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04091-SOH Document 7 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>