Davis v. Cox

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOSEPH ERIC PATRICK DAVIS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 	4:23-cv-04101-SOH-MEF
SHERIFF JEFF BLACK and
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR RAMI COX 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Joseph Eric Patrick Davis, currently an inmate of the Lafayette County Jail, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
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 a
Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). 	Pursuant to § 1915A(a), the Court must screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on October 16, 2023, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. 	(ECF Nos. 1, 2). 	The Eastern
District Court transferred the case to this Court on October 18, 2023. 	(ECF No. 3). 	This Court
then ordered Plaintiff to supplement his IFP Motion and amend his Complaint. 	(ECF Nos. 6, 7).
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint and completed IFP Motion on December 4, 2023. 	(ECF
Case 4:23-cv-04101-MEF Document 13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Nos. 9, 10). 	The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion on December 5, 2023. 	(ECF No. 11). 	At
all times relevant to the claims in this matter, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at Lafayette County
Jail (“LCJ”) in Lewisville, Arkansas. 	In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three claims against two
defendants: Jail Administrator Rami Cox and Sheriff Jeff Black.
In Claim One, Plaintiff claims Defendants denied him medical care and failed to protect
him in February and March of 2023. 	Specifically, Plaintiff sates:
My Jaw and my nose was broken or fractured and I was denied medical attention on
numerous occasions by Rami Cox the jail administrator. 	I could not eat solid foods for
two months. 	I’m still unable to eat like I should and my nose is crooked Then after I was
jumped I was placed back in the same pod. 	This happened a total of three times I wrote
grievances and request forms to get the proper help I needed which I was denied by Rami
Cox even after the jail doctor said I needed X-Rays and Medical treatment.
(ECF No. 10, pp. 4-5) (errors in original). 	Plaintiff asserts Claim One against Defendants in both
their individual and official capacities. 	Id.
In Claim Two, Plaintiff also claims Defendants denied him medical care and failed to
protect him in February and March 2023. 	Specifically, Plaintiff states:
My nose and my jaw was broken or fractured. 	Rami Cox denied me medical attention on
numerous occasions. 	I was injured by several people jumping on me, then I was put in
the same pod with the same guys three different times.
(ECF No. 10, p. 6) (errors in original). 	Plaintiff asserts Claim Two against Defendants in both
their official and individual capacities. 	Id.
In Claim Three, Plaintiff once again claims Defendants denied him medical care and failed
to protect him in February and March 2023. 	Specifically, Plaintiff states:
My nose & jaw were broken or fractured the jail doctor said, I needed X-Rays Ms. Rami
Cox denied my medical treatment. 	I wrote to get the grievances I filed and she’s telling
me she does not have them. 	I was injured by several people jumping on me a total of three
times. 	I was put back in pod each time.
(ECF No. 10, p. 8) (errors in original). 	Plaintiff asserts Claim Three against Defendants in their
Case 4:23-cv-04101-MEF Document 13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
official and individual capacities. 	Id.
Plaintiff claims he lost weight due to his broken jaw, and that his nose is now crooked
because it was not timely treated. 	He requests pain and suffering compensation for these injuries,
and punitive damages so no one else must suffer in the same way. 	(ECF No. 10, p. 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 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. 	In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988); Spencer
v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987). 	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
Case 4:23-cv-04101-MEF Document 13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
States. 	To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted
under color of state law and violated a right secured by the Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999). 	The deprivation must be
intentional; mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional
right under Section 1983. 	See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon,
474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986).
A claim of deprivation of a constitutional right cannot be based on a respondeat superior
theory of liability. 	See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 654, 694 (1978). 	“[A]
supervisor is not vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an employee’s unconstitutional
activity.” 	White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277, 280 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Whitson v. Stone County
Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir. 2010) (“In a § 1983 case, an official is only liable for his own
misconduct and is not accountable for the misdeeds of his agents under a theory such as respondeat
superior or supervisor liability.”) (internal quotations omitted); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309,
1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient
to establish the personal involvement required to support liability).
“Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the
deprivation of rights. 	To establish personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff]
must allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of
his constitutional rights.” 	Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Plaintiff did not allege any actions or personal involvement of Defendant Black in his
Amended Complaint. 	Defendant Black cannot be liable simply for being the Sheriff of Lafayette
County. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Black,
Case 4:23-cv-04101-MEF Document 13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
and Defendant Black should be dismissed from this action.
The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently stated, at this juncture, a denial of medical care
and failure to protect claim against Defendant Cox to warrant service of Defendant Cox. 	The
Court will order service by separate Order.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant,
Sheriff Jeff Black, be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). 	The case should proceed on the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant, Jail
Administrator Rami Cox.
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 3rd day of January 2024.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-04101-MEF Document 13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>