Chambers v. McCleland et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
DEVELL CHAMBERS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05239-CDC
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington
County, Arkansas; LIEUTENANT AMANDA
ARNOLD, Washington County Detention Center
(WCDC); CORPORAL HENSON, WCDC;
DEPUTY MCCALLISTER, WCDC; CORPORAL
SANDY BROOKE, WCDC; DEPUTY HUGHES,
WCDC; and DEPUTY MURPHY, WCDC 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Devell Chambers (“Chambers”), an inmate of the Washington County Detention
Center (WCDC), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Chambers proceeds pro se
and in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
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 a several of Chambers’ claims, this document will be filed as a Report and
Recommendation and the case will automatically 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No.
6) 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.
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Chambers filed this case on November 20, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Chambers was advised
that his Complaint was deficient because it did not describe how each named Defendant personally
violated his constitutional rights. 	(ECF No. 3). 	He was explicitly told that he must “include in
his factual allegations how each Defendant personally violated his rights.” 	Id. 	Chambers was
also advised that he had mentioned individuals in his statement of claims that he did not name as
Defendants. 	He was advised that if he intended “for these individuals to be Defendants, he must
list them in Section III and in the factual allegations explain how each personally violated his
federal constitutional rights.” 	Id.
Chambers was given explicit instructions on what his Amended Complaint must contain.
(ECF No. 3). 	The instructions included the following:
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the
Court: 	(1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of
the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed
to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation
of Plaintiff=s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered
because of that Defendant=s conduct. 	See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72,
377 (1976); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant.
Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must affirmatively link the conduct of each
named Defendant with the specific injury he suffered. 	If he fails to do, the
allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
(ECF No. 3 at 1-2).
On December 10, 2024, Chambers filed his Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 6).
According to the allegations of Claim One of Amended Complaint, on August 24, 2024, Defendant
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
McCallister1 with the assistance of Defendant Hughes pushed Chambers against the wall in the
pod with excessive force. 	Id. at 4. 	As a result, Chambers states his left forearm was cracked.
Id. 	Chambers states he was denied medical care. 	Id. at 5. 	When asked which of his
constitutional rights he believed were violated, Chambers stated excessive force, denial of medical
care and denial of food. 	Id. at 4. 	The alleged denial of food is not mentioned in his statement of
facts. 	Id. at 4-5. 	Chambers also lists Defendants Henson, Murphy, and Brooke as individuals
involved. 	Id. 	However, he makes no factual allegations regarding these individuals. 	In the
form complaint where he is asked to describe the custom, policy, or widespread practice that he
believes caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights, Chambers stated: “Treated me
inhum[a]n[ely]/and caused me emotional/mental damage.” 	Id. at 5.
While the Amended Complaint contains a Claim Two, the claim merely repeats the
allegations contained in Claim One regarding the use of excessive force and denial of medical
care. 	(ECF No. 6 at 5-7). 	Claim Two names’ Defendants Hughes, Arnold, Henson, McCallister,
and Brooke as those involved in the constitutional violation. 	Id. at 6. 	No factual allegations are
made concerning Defendants Arnold, Henson, or Brooke other than the following statement
provided in the area where Chambers was asked to describe his official capacity claim: “wrongful
misconduct of all parties.” 	Id. at 6-7.
Claim Three includes Defendants Henson, Brooke, Murphy, Hughes, and McCallister as
the parties involved in the constitutional violations. 	(ECF No. 6 at 7). 	The minimal factual
statements repeat the excessive force and denial of medical care claims. 	In the area where
1 Despite the Court’s instructions, Chambers did not list Defendants McCallister, Hughes, or
Murphy in Section III of the Amended Complaint. 	However, it is clear Chambers is attempting
to assert claims against them. 	Therefore, the Court added these individuals as Defendants.
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Chambers is asked to state which constitutional rights were violated, he adds that he was “refused
meal.” 	Id. 	In his factual statement, however, Chambers does not mention anything about being
denied a meal or meals. 	Id. at 8.
As relief, Chambers seeks both compensatory and punitive damages for his “broken left
for[e]arm and being treated inhuma[nely].” 	Id. at 9.
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). 	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 (2) that he or she violated a right secured by the constitution.
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999).
Several of Chambers’ claims are subject to dismissal.
First, Defendant Cantrell cannot be held liable based solely on his supervisory position at
the WCDC. 	Under § 1983 a supervisor cannot be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of
a subordinate based solely on the fact that he has general responsibility for supervising the
operations of the facility. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S, 662, 676 (2009); Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d
993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010). 	In other words, Defendant Cantrell is only liable for his own individual
actions which resulted in the deprivation of Chambers’ constitutional rights. 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
676. 	In this case, Chambers has made no factual statements regarding Defendant Cantrell’s
conduct. 	Indeed, Defendant Cantrell is not mentioned at all in the body of the Amended
Complaint. 	The only reference to him is that he is listed as a Defendant.
Second, no factual allegations are made regarding Defendants Arnold, Henson, Brooke,
and Murphy. 	“Section 1983 liability is personal.” 	Dahl v. Weber, 580 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir.
2009). 	“Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the
deprivation of rights.” 	Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). 	Chambers has failed to state a claim against Defendants Arnold, Henson, Brooke, and
Murphy.
Third, while Chambers has alleged he was denied medical care, he has not described how
any of the named Defendants were involved in the denial of care. 	No plausible denial of medical
claim is stated.
Finally, no plausible claim has been stated regarding the diet Chambers receives. 	His sole
allegation is that he missed a meal and/or meals. 	No factual allegations are made regarding this
claim. 	He does not indicate that any of the named Defendants were responsible for the missed
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
meal or meals.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I recommend that:
• 	all claims against Defendant Cantrell be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 	28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
• 	all claims against Defendants Arnold, Henson, Brooke, and Murphy be dismissed
for failure to state a claim. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
• 	the denial of medical care claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 	28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
• 	the denial of a meal and/or meals claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
This leaves for further litigation the excessive force claim against Defendants Hughes and
McCallister. 	By separate Order the Amended Complaint will be served on them.
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.
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Status of the Referral: 	This case should remain referred for all matters not
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December 2024.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05239-TLB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>