Phillips v. Frakes, 8:16-cv-00554

Background

Plaintiff Jarrod Phillips, an NSP inmate, alleges he struck caseworker Randy Bradley on March 29, 2016 after provocation; Bradley lost consciousness but later allegedly threatened Phillips and lunged at him without making contact. Phillips was handcuffed, charged with criminal assault, disciplined (loss of good-time credits, segregation), and transferred to Tecumseh.
Phillips claims Defendant Officer Michael Reeves filed a false report; Investigator John Chavez failed to properly investigate; Deputy County Attorney James Rocke filed criminal charges; and various prison officials (Frakes, Sabatke-Rhine, Rothwell, Cruishank, Hanson, others) conspired to cover up Bradley’s conduct, retaliate against Phillips, tamper with medication, and impede investigations.
Phillips seeks damages, restoration of good-time credits, prosecution/termination of certain staff, and transfer to community work release. He proceeded in forma pauperis and filed an Amended Complaint after initial review.
Court reviews under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A for failure to state a claim and PLRA exhaustion; it liberally construes pro se pleadings but applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards.
The court finds Phillips alleged no physical injury from Bradley’s alleged non-contact threats; disciplinary claims implicating loss of good-time credits are barred under Heck/Edwards unless habeas relief is obtained; prosecutorial actions have absolute immunity; and malicious-prosecution/retaliation claims fail where probable cause existed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force (Eighth Amendment) by Bradley	Bradley threatened and lunged; conduct was malicious and caused emotional harm	No physical contact or injury; conduct was de minimis	Dismissed — no physical injury or actionable excessive force; mental injury claim barred by §1997e(e)
Challenge to prison disciplinary sanction (loss of good-time credits)	Reeves’ false report and Chavez’s inadequate investigation rendered disciplinary action unlawful	Disciplinary action rested on Phillips’ assault on Bradley; penalties lawful	Dismissed — claim implies invalidity of sentence; barred by Heck/Edwards; remedy is habeas under §2254
Malicious prosecution / prosecutorial liability (Rocke)	Prosecutor and staff conspired to bring charges based on false reports	Rocke has absolute prosecutorial immunity; charges were supported by probable cause	Dismissed — absolute immunity for prosecutor; no damages shown and probable cause existed
Claims of conspiracy/cover-up and failure to discipline staff	Officials conspired to prevent discipline/prosecution of Bradley and to retaliate against Phillips	Private citizen has no right to compel criminal prosecutions; transfer/administrative actions did not deprive constitutional rights	Dismissed — no standing to force prosecution; transfers and alleged administrative failures do not state §1983 violations

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility pleading standard)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (administrative remedies must be ‘available’ to require exhaustion)
Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1 (excessive force standard; de minimis force may not violate Eighth Amendment)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (injury is relevant but excessive-force claim can survive with more than de minimis force)
Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007 (Eighth Circuit excessive-force analysis)
Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720 (§1997e(e) bars recovery for purely emotional injury without physical injury)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (retaliatory prosecution claim fails if charges supported by probable cause)
Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (false or reckless investigation implicates due process only if used to deprive liberty)