Watkins v. Summit Food Services ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION ALVIS J. WATKINS, JR. PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05219 SUMMIT FOOD SERVICES; CORPORAL BABION, Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”); SERGEANT MCNEALLY, WCDC; and LIEUTENANT AKE, WCDC DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Alvis J. Watkins, Jr., currently an inmate of the Washington County Detention Center, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Watkins proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The case is before the Court for preservice screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Pursuant to § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. I. DISCUSSION 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). 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 1 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). Here, Watkins contends that Defendants Babion, McNeally, and Ake failed to provide him with the name of a Summit Food Services employee. This is not a claim of constitutional dimension. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (finding that in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated a right secured by the constitution). There are no other claims asserted against these Defendants, and they are subject to dismissal. II. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Corporal Babion, Sergeant McNeally, and Lieutenant Ake are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). By separate order, the Complaint will be served on Summit Food Services. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 28th day of December, 2020. /s/ Timothy L. Brooks______________ TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2