Akins v. Walmart Spark

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

NAVASHIA AKINS PLAINTIFF

V. No. 4:25-cv-570-DPM

WALMART SPARK and DELIVERY DRIVERS, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Akins’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. She reports living on limited income. 2. The Court must screen Akins’s complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). She sues Walmart and Delivery Drivers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that they violated her civil rights by not disclosing the findings of a background check, the results of which ended her ability to work as a driver for Walmart Sparks. Walmart Spark employs “independent contractor drivers” to deliver its customers’ online orders. Spark Driver, WALMART, http.//drive4spark.walmart.com (last visited 17 June 2025). “Delivery Drivers Inc. (DDI) is the “administrator of driver management’ for Spark Driver.” Walz v. Walmart Inc., 2024 WL 2864230, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 6 June 2024). It’s unknown when Delivery Drivers performed a background check or under what authority they did so. But Akins contends that Defendants “operated

in a public/private joint capacity, similar to a government actor” and violated her due process rights by denying her “access to essential work.” Doc. 2 at 3-4. She seeks $3,000,000. Claims under § 1983 require state action. Both Walmart Sparks and Delivery Drivers are private corporations, not the government. In limited circumstances, a private entity can qualify as a state actor. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 809-10 (2019); Doe v. North Homes, Inc., 11 F.4th 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2021). None of the few qualifying circumstances are present here. Akins’s assertion that the defendants acted “similar” to government actors is not enough to state a § 1983 claim. So Ordered. SPrgustall D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 30 Dene

~2-