Adams v. Williams
4:16-cv-00813
E.D. Ark.Apr 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Norman Adams, a former detainee at White County Detention Center, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of the free exercise of religion by jail staff.
- Complaint alleged that on October 30, 2016, Defendants (Ms. Crenshaw, Lt. Williams, Corporal Donnell) "forcefully denied our religion as a form of punishment."
- Magistrate Judge Volpe screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and notified Adams that the pleading lacked factual detail and likely would be dismissed unless amended.
- Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the thirty-day period provided.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim and that the dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a First Amendment free-exercise claim | Adams alleges jail staff "forcefully denied our religion" as punishment on a specific date | Defendants implicitly assert no need to answer; screening challenges complaint's sufficiency | Complaint dismissed for failing to plead sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim |
| Whether plaintiff was given leave to amend | Adams sought to proceed with original complaint; Magistrate granted time to amend | N/A (Magistrate invited amendment) | Plaintiff did not amend within allotted time; dismissal followed |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice and count as a PLRA "strike" | Adams sought relief but alleged insufficient facts | N/A | Recommended dismissal without prejudice and to count as a §1915(g) strike |
| Whether in forma pauperis appeal would be in good faith | Adams' filings insufficiently plead claim | N/A | Court certified an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith under §1915(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous suits lacking arguable basis in law or fact)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim plausible on its face)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (frivolousness determinations under §1915 cannot resolve disputed facts)
- Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985) (pro se complaints must still allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim)