Vagante De Rossitte v. Byers et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
IKARA CHRISTIANA EARNESTINE EUGE
VAGANTE DE ROSSITTE
(formerly known as Christopher Eugene
De Rossitte) 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:25-06096-JTS-MEF
WARDEN JERRY BYERS
(former Warden ADC Ouachita River Unit);
LT. CLARK;
EVERETT LITZEY
(former Major at ADC ORU-demoted);
DOE
(Superior Officer);
ALLISON CASH
(ORU Grievance Officer formerly known as
Amanda Cash);
DOE OFFICER;
FORMER DEPUTY DIRECT REED;
CORPORAL THOMAS;
LIETENANT MONTGOMERY;
TAYLOR OSSENI;
SERGEANT WOOD;
SERGEANT DELANEY;
SERGEANT SUTTON;
MAILROOM PERSONNEL
(from 3/1/2024 to present);
SERGEANT LEE
CAPTAIN JENNINGS
WARDEN SHIPMAN 	DEFENDANTS
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 John Thomas Sheperd, United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 her Complaint on September 11, 2025. 	(ECF No. 1). 	That same day, the
Court entered an Order which severed Plaintiff claims concerning her allegations of a blanket book
ban at the Arkansas Division of Correction Ouachita River Unit from her claims concerning
retaliation for her gender preference and legal activities. (ECF No. 3). The Clerk was directed to
open a new case for the book ban claim, and Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended Complaint
for both this case and the new case.
The Amended Complaint deadline was set for October 14, 2025. (Id.). On October 22,
2025, eight days past the deadline to submit her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a Motion
for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 9). This Motion was granted and the second deadline set for
December 15, 2025. 	(ECF No. 10). 	On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reassert
Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 11). This Motion was denied as
moot on October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 12). On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. 	(ECF No. 18). 	On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a Third
Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a deadline of February 15, 2026. (ECF No. 19). This
Motion was granted in part, and Plaintiff was given a deadline of January 16, 2026, to submit her
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff then submitted a Fourth Motion for Extension of
Time on January 12, 2026, again requesting a deadline of February 15, 2026. (ECF No. 21). This
Motion was granted in part, and Plaintiff was given until January 30, 2026, to submit her Amended
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Complaint. 	(ECF No. 22). 	Plaintiff was advised that no further extensions would be granted.
(Id.).
Because Plaintiff had been given four months and 24 days to submit her Amended
Complaint in this case and failed to do so, the undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation
to dismiss the case for failure to obey orders and failure to prosecute on February 4, 2026. (ECF
No. 23). Plaintiff then submitted her Amended Complaint on February 12, 2026. The Court notes
that in two of her Motions for Extension, Plaintiff had requested a submission date of February 15,
2026. 	(ECF No. Nos. 19, 21). Thus, even though she was repeatedly ordered to submit her
Amended Complaint in compliance with earlier Court deadlines, Plaintiff instead submitted her
Amended Complaint in the exact timeframe she had chosen in early December 2025. (ECF No.
26). Because Plaintiff had eventually submitted an Amended Complaint, Judge Hickey declined
to adopt the Report and Recommendation on March 6, 2026. (ECF No. 27).
Plaintiff attached two documents entitled “Addendum” to her Amended Complaint,
comprising a total of 10 pages. 	These attachments were submitted in direct violation of the
instructions on the court-approved Complaint form. Because neither the Federal nor Local Rules
of Civil Procedure contemplate the piecemeal filing of a Complaint in multiple cobbled together
documents, nothing in these “Addendums” will be considered.
Plaintiff raises four claims in the Amended Complaint. For Claim One, Plaintiff alleges
her rights were violated from November 2022 through November 7, 2025. (ECF No. 26 at 9). She
alleges she was “systematically targeted” on a “near daily basis” in “innumerable small ways.”
She states that most of the targeting was not actionable, but in “several significant incidents” her
rights were “assaulted.” (Id. at 9-10). She believes that “in some instances or in most” the reason
for the targeting was either her LGBTQ status or that the ADC was trying to discourage her from
engaging in legal work. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff alleges this targeting had “a negative impact upon her
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
redress through the courts, denied religious practices and physical suffering.” (Id. at 10). Plaintiff
proceeds against Defendants for this claim in both their individual and official capacities. (Id.).
Although Plaintiff names several Defendants for this claim, she fails to provide any factual
allegations of individual action or inaction by any of the named Defendants for this claim. Nor
does she identify or describe any particular incident. For the official capacity portion of this claim,
Plaintiff alleges that “evidence will show beyond the number of incidents evincing widespread
practice, of an unofficial policy fomented by Major Litzey and Warden Byers to ‘rein in’ those
(and particularly the Plaintiff) doing legal work.” (Id.). Plaintiff identifies no specific incidents
related to this unofficial policy.
For Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges that her rights were violated between November 2022
through November 7, 2025. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff states “all named Defendants” were involved.
(Id.). 	Again, Plaintiff fails to provide any factual allegation of individual action or inaction by
these Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff alleges there was a “systematic and flagrant disregard for 1 st
Amendment Rights, including denied religious liberties, free speech and redress resulting in 8 th
Amendment violating cruel and unusual punishment and statutory violation of RLUIPA. . ..”
Plaintiff identifies no specific incident. 	She further alleges that, being of “more than ordinary
firmness,” she “was not chilled despite retaliation.” (Id.). As her official capacity portion of this
claim, Plaintiff alleges that “these practices only became widespread, or more than quite
infrequent, with the advent of the Byers and Litzey administrations and new actual policies along
with new practices they implemented.” (Id. at 12). Again, Plaintiff identifies no specific incidents
related to the unidentified policies.
For Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges that her rights were violated from March 2023 through
January 2026. Plaintiff names Defendants Byers, Cash, Clark, Lee, Reed and Mailroom Personnel.
(Id. at 12). Plaintiff alleges that:
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Certain (but not all) ORU and ADC personnel in a position to do so,
routinely 	sought 	to 	circumscribe, 	misdirect, 	ineffectuate 	or
otherwise deny due process and redress and cover up malfeasance
through the grievance process with intent to thereby restrict access
to remedy through the Courts. 	The two primarily concerned with
this stymieing of procedural due process were Allison Cash and
Jerry Byers although Dale Rees, Lt. Clark, Sgt. Lee and Mailroom
Personnel were also involved. In violating Plaintiff’s rights their
actions have, and will, severely negatively impact this action, and
others, massively increasing difficulties pursuing legal remedy such
Plaintiff must counterargue (and win) each duplicitous action or
statement which invariably will result in loss of some valid evidence
of claims in multiple actions.
(Id. at 13). 	Once again, Plaintiff identifies no specific grievances or incidents. 	As the official
capacity portion of this claim, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]his constant practice through the office of
the Warden and Grievance Officer made it de facto policy.” (Id. at 13-14). Plaintiff identifies no
specific incidents related to the unidentified policies.
For Claim Four, Plaintiff alleges that her rights were violated from November 2022 though
January 2026. She names “all named Defendants.” (Id. at 14). Plaintiff alleges that “all events
and incidents in the general and particular also violated Arkansas laws and Constitutional Rights,
thus all claims above are incorporated herein as if restated in full.” (Id.). As her official capacity
claim, Plaintiff alleges: “[t]he same assertions in the above three claims apply equally here and so
are assumed as if restated in full.”
Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages. 	(Id. at 16). 	She specifies
“injunctive and declaratory relief such to end and prevent the repetition of such abuses, and any
other relief the Court may deem fit and proper.” (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
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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
framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). The complaint must, however, still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts sufficient to support any plausible
constitutional claims. She has failed to identify any specific incidents violating her rights. She
has failed to identify any specific actions or inactions by any of the named Defendants regarding
any of her claims. 	She has failed to identify any policies or any incidents related to those
unidentified polices regarding any official capacity claims. “Liability under Section 1983 requires
a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370 (1976)). Thus, to state
a cognizable Section 1983 claim, a complaint must set forth specific factual allegations showing
what each named defendant allegedly did, or failed to do, that allegedly violated the plaintiff's
federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not identified any specific factual incidents or alleged a
causal link between any of the Defendants and her claims. See Martin, 780 F.2d 1337. Instead,
she provides nine pages of overly broad, vague, and conclusory statements which are insufficient
to plead a § 1983 claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“labels and conclusions,”
“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a § 1983 claim; instead, a prisoner must set
forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face”) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state any plausible constitutional claims in
this case.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons discussed above, 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
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 8th day of May 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 30 Filed 05/08/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>