Crowley v. Jordan
This text of Crowley v. Jordan (Crowley v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION
MARK DANIEL CROWLEY PLAINTIFF #798768
V. NO. 4:22-cv-00069-LPR-ERE
JORDAN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Mark Daniel Crowely, a pre-trial detainee at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (Detention Facility), filed this pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims based on: (1) unconstitutional conditions of his confinement; and (2) inadequate medical care. Mr. Crowley named as Defendants Deputy Jordan, Deputy Ataway, Maintenance Worker Smith, Dr. Cobb, Lieutenant Waters, Sergeant Hill, Sergeant Cobb, Captain Paxton, and an unidentified lieutenant. Because Mr. Crowley may not pursue unrelated claims in one lawsuit, the Court directed him to file an amended complaint identifying the single claim, or if, appropriate, multiple related claims that he wants to pursue in this lawsuit. Doc. 4. Mr. Crowley has now filed an amended complaint. Doc. 6. Mr. Crowley’s amended complaint clarifies his constitutional claims against Defendants Jordan, Ataway, Hendrix, and Smith and abandons his claims against Dr. Cobb, Lieutenant Waters, Sergeant Hill, Sergeant Cobb, Captain Paxton, and the Doe Defendant.1 Mr. Crowley contends that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement during his incarceration in cell T-321. He alleges that he
was housed in a cell containing human feces for over two months and denied adequate cleaning supplies. As a result of the unsanitary conditions, he became violently ill on two occasions. In addition, on December 8, 2021, Mr. Crowley
injured his finger on his sink, which was in need of repair. The same day, he received stitches, but based on the unsanitary conditions of his cell, he contracted a staph infection. In January 2022, Mr. Crowley’s pinky finger was amputated. For screening purposes, Mr. Crowley has stated a deliberate indifference
claim against Defendants Jordan, Ataway, Hendrix, and Smith.2 Accordingly, service is now proper for those Defendants. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare summonses for Defendants Jordan, Ataway, Hendrix, and Smith.
1 In its January 28, 2022 Order, the Court specifically notified Mr. Crowley that an amended complaint, if filed, would supersede his original complaint. Doc. 4 at 3. See In re Atlas Lines, Inc. 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect).
2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints, and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are 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 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011). 2. The United States Marshal is directed to serve these Defendants with a
summons and a copy of the complaint and the amended complaint (Docs. 2, 6), without requiring prepayment of fees and costs or security. Service for these Defendants should be through the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, 3201 West Roosevelt Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204. 3. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Dr. Cobb, Lieutenant Waters, Sergeant Hill, Sergeant Cobb, Captain Paxton, and the Doe Defendant as party Defendants. DATED this 10th day of February, 2022.
LM aya UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Crowley v. Jordan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-jordan-ared-2022.