1 In that action, in an Order dated June 30, 2005 (docket entry #7), the Court directed the Clerk of
the Court to send to Plaintiff forms to pursue a § 1983 action “if he elects to do so . . . in a separate
action.” Plaintiff apparently read this as instructing him to do so immediately.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
WILLIE WELLS III PLAINTIFF
V.
Case No. 3:05CV00159 JMM/HDY
JUDGE WILLIAM PAL RAINEY, District Judge,
West Memphis District Court; WEST MEMPHIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT; SGT. BOBBY WILSON, West Memphis
Police Department; OFFICER D. SKAGGS, West
Memphis Police Department; and OFFICER BRENT
BRADLEY, West Memphis Police Department DEFENDANTS
ORDER of DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Crittenden County Detention Facility, filed a pro se
Complaint (docket entry #2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was submitted to the
Court following Plaintiff’s filing of a habeas corpus action in Wells v. West Memphis Police
Department et al, case no. 3:05CV00075 WRW/JTR.1 After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s
pleadings pursuant to its screening function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court concludes
that this action must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983.
I. Screening
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are
Case 3:05-cv-00159-JMM Document 3 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 1 of 6
Wells v. Rainey et al
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c)
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is im