Hamilton v. Hall

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided November 23, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-00225·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION HOUSTON L. HAMILTON PLAINTIFF V. No. 3:21-CV-00225-DPM-JTR MATT HALL, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER Poinsette County Detentions Center DEFENDANT ORDER Plaintiff's Motion for Status (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. Before Plaintiff may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.! His Complaint (Doc. 2) is currently under review by the Court. Once this screening review is complete, the Court will direct service upon the Defendant for claims that survive screening, if

any. The Clerk is directed to send Hamilton an updated copy of the docket sheet. DATED this 23rd day of November, 2021.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

'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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hamilton v. Hall, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Hamilton v. Hall (Hamilton v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Reynolds v. Dormire
636 F.3d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)