Maskell v. Hildreth

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:23-cv-01048-SOH-BAB
CHIEF OF POLICE SHAUN HILDRETH 	DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Adam Maskell (“Maskell”), pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff maintains his rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated by the Defendant, Shaun
Hildreth, the Chief of Police of the Warren Police Department, Warren Arkansas (“Chief
Hildreth”).
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
According to the allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), Chief Hildreth searched and
seized Maskell’s cellphone without a warrant. 	Id. at 3. 	During the search, Maskell says Chief
Hildreth “looked for things unrelated to [Maskell’s] arrest on a cloud-based app.” 	Id. 	In fact,
Maskell states Chief Hildreth admitted to “unwittingly” searching the Facebook app. 	Id. at 4.
Maskell next alleges Chief Hildreth “purposefully” destroyed exculpatory evidence
requested for use of “affirmative and justification defenses [he] wish[s] to raise at [his] trial.”
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 5 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(ECF No. 1 at 3-4.1 	In this regard, Maskell indicates the Chief Heldreth “erased the server” and
destroyed the body camera evidence. 	Id. at 4. 	According to Maskell, police department policy
makes the police chief responsible for the preservation and storage of body camera footage. 	Id.
As relief, Maskell seeks compensatory damages. 	(ECF No. 1 at 5). 	Maskell also wants
Chief Hildreth terminated for purposefully destroying exculpatory evidence. 	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
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. §
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)).
1 In State v. Maskell, 06CR-22-25, Plaintiff is charged with a one count amended criminal
information with possession of a firearm by certain persons. 	The initial information contained
two additional charges—terroristic threatening and aggravated assault. 	The case is ongoing.
Case information is publicly available at Arkansas Court Connect.
https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/cconnect/PROD/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?back
to=P&case_id=06CR-22-25&begin_date=&end_date= (accessed June 5, 2023).
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 5 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts are required to abstain
from hearing cases when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates
important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal questions presented.” 	Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller
v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)). 	Ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate the
important state interest of enforcing state criminal law, and constitutional claims relating to that
proceeding should be raised there. 	Meador v. Paulson, 385 Fed. App’x 613 (8th Cir. 2010); see
also Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc. Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010). 	“If all three
questions are answered affirmatively, a federal court should abstain unless it detects bad faith,
harassment, 	or 	some 	extraordinary 	circumstance 	that 	would 	make 	abstention
inappropriate.” 	Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Ft. Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir.
1998)(citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435
(1982)(internal quotations omitted).
In this case, Maskell has an ongoing state criminal case. 	He attempts here to argue the
search of his cell phone was unlawful; and Chief Hildreth deliberately destroyed exculpatory
evidence which Maskell desires to use in the state criminal proceeding. 	These issues can and
should be raised in the criminal case. 	It is appropriate to stay this case pursuant to Younger
abstention.
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 5 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), it is
recommended that this case be STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED
during the pendency of Maskell’s state criminal case. 	Maskell should be advised to file a motion
to reopen once the criminal case is completed.
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 20th day of June 2023.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 5 Filed 06/20/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>