Bryan v. The Bond Issuer of Mathew Whitaker et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
DONALD STEVEN BRYAN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-05050-CDC
THE BOND ISSUER OF MATHEW WHITAKER,
Springdale Police Department; THE BOND ISSUER
OF JOSH KIRMER, Springdale Police Department;
THE BOND ISSUER OF MITCHELL HAMMONS,
Springdale Police Department; and THE BOND ISSUER
OF JOHN BILLINGSLEY, Springdale Police Department 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Donald Steven Bryan (“Bryan”), an inmate of the Washington County Detention
Center (“WCDC”), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Bryan proceeds pro se
and in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Assignment to the undersigned Magistrate Judge was automatic; however, because not all
parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, and this Report recommends dismissal of
Bryan’s claims, the case automatically will be reassigned to United States District Judge Timothy
L. Brooks. 	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 of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	Pursuant to § 1915A, 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
This Complaint is based on the factual allegations asserted by Bryan in Bryan v. Whitaker,
Case 5:25-cv-05050-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
et al., Civil No. 5:23-cv-05238-TLB-MEF. 	Specifically, Bryan alleges that on March 2, 2022, he
was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a friend, Ashley. 	(ECF No. 1 at 5). 	Ashley drove to a
motel in Springdale looking for her friend. 	Id. 	Bryan’s friend parked in front of a room, got out
and knocked, and no one answered the door. 	Id. 	Bryan’s friend then drove to the other side of
the motel, parked in front of a room, and got out and knocked. Id.; compare (Civil No. 23-05238
ECF No. 1 at 4).
Bryan says he stayed in the car the whole time playing a game on his phone. (ECF No. 1
at 5). Officer Whitaker approached the vehicle and told both Bryan and Ashley that they needed
to give him their identification because he believed their activity was suspicious. 	Id. 	If Bryan
did not provide his name, he was advised he would be charged with loitering. Id. Defendant
Whitaker advised he had never lost a case of loitering. 	Id. 	Bryan believes he was being profiled
because the officers had heard there was drug activity at the motel. 	Id. 	Two or three more patrol
cars arrived. 	Id. 	Bryan alleges all of this occurred within five or six minutes of their arriving at
the motel. 	Id.
Bryan says he was then surrounded by officers advising him that if he did not provide his
identification he would be charged with a crime. 	(ECF No. 1 at 6). 	At this point, Bryan alleges
he went to turn on his phone camera which he says he had in his hand this whole time. 	Id. 	When
he moved his hand, Bryan indicates he was yanked out of the car, his phone was taken out of his
hands and turned off, and then he was slammed against the vehicle. 	Id. 	An officer was yelling
that Bryan was reaching for something. 	Id. 	Bryan watched officers going through his phone,
writing numbers down, and showing the phone to others. 	Id.
Bryan then alleges the entity or entities issuing the bonds for Whitaker, Kirmer, Hammons,
and Billingsley are “responsible for the actions of their agents.” 	(ECF No. 1 at 7). 	Bryan argues
Case 5:25-cv-05050-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/19/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
that government officials should not be entitled to qualified immunity under any circumstances.
Id. 	With respect to the bond issuers, Bryant alleges the requirement for public servants or officials
to be bonded supports his argument against the broad application of qualified immunity. 	Id. 	He
maintains bonds or insurance policies are designed to provide a remedy or compensation when an
official’s wrongful actions harm an individual. 	Id. 	If the individual has qualified immunity,
Bryan contends there would be no reason for such safeguards. 	Id.
As relief, Bryan asserts he is asking for damages in the amount of $500,000 per bond and
any other reparations and/or compensation the Court finds appropriate. 	(ECF No. 1 at 9). 	Bryan
would also like the Court to place liens on the bonds until reparations have been made. 	Id.
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
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).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in 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
Case 5:25-cv-05050-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/19/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(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 (2) that 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).
In this case, Bryan seeks to put the “cart before the horse.” 	First, Bryan has not obtained
a judgment against any of the four police officers in Civil No. 5:23-cv-05238-TLB-MEF. 	Second,
he has not alleged that he is a beneficiary of the bond rather than the City of Springdale, or even
any facts suggesting such bonds in fact exist.0F
1 	Third, and perhaps most importantly, Bryan – at
most – has asserted a state law contract claim. 	In short, this is not a civil rights claim under §
1983. 	Finally, there are no allegations in Bryan’s pleading from which this Court could determine
whether diversity jurisdiction properly could be exercised.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I recommend that 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.
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
1 But see Ark. Const. Amend. 55, § 6 requiring all county officials to be bonded.
Case 5:25-cv-05050-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/19/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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.
Status of Referral: 	The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March 2025.
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05050-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/19/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>