Lewis v. Fuentes

E.D. Arkansas

Lewis v. Fuentes

DecidedFebruary 2, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00015

StatusUnknown

This text of Lewis v. Fuentes (Lewis v. Fuentes) 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.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Fuentes, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

LUTHER LEWIS PLAINTIFF ADC #156922

VS. 4:21-CV-00015-BRW

MIKE FUENTES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Luther Lewis (“Plaintiff”), currently in custody in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Division of Corrections, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 I must screen prisoner complaints that seek relief against a government entity, officer, or employee.2 I will dismiss any part of a complaint raising claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages.3 For screening purposes, Plaintiff has stated unlawful arrest claims against Defendants Fitzhugh and Fuentes, and excessive force claims against Defendants Fitzhugh and Evans. The Clerk is directed to prepare summons for Defendants Fitzhugh, Fuentes, and Evans. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint (Doc. No. 2), Summons, and this Order on each of them without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service should be attempted through the Conway Police Department, 1105 Prairie Street, Conway, Arkansas 72032.

1 Doc. No. 2.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (§ 1915A’s screening requirement applies regardless of fee status).

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff claims Defendant Culliford fastened the seatbelt around Plaintiff when Plaintiff was in the backseat of a patrol car.4 These allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Culliford are dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant Culliford is dismissed as a Defendant from this lawsuit. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson ___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Doc. No. 2 at 4. 2

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

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

LUTHER LEWIS PLAINTIFF ADC #156922

VS. 4:21-CV-00015-BRW

MIKE FUENTES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Luther Lewis (“Plaintiff”), currently in custody in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Division of Corrections, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 I must screen prisoner complaints that seek relief against a government entity, officer, or employee.2 I will dismiss any part of a complaint raising claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying damages.3 For screening purposes, Plaintiff has stated unlawful arrest claims against Defendants Fitzhugh and Fuentes, and excessive force claims against Defendants Fitzhugh and Evans. The Clerk is directed to prepare summons for Defendants Fitzhugh, Fuentes, and Evans. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint (Doc. No. 2), Summons, and this Order on each of them without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Service should be attempted through the Conway Police Department, 1105 Prairie Street, Conway, Arkansas 72032.

1 Doc. No. 2.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (§ 1915A’s screening requirement applies regardless of fee status).

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff claims Defendant Culliford fastened the seatbelt around Plaintiff when Plaintiff was in the backseat of a patrol car.4 These allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Culliford are dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant Culliford is dismissed as a Defendant from this lawsuit. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson ___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Doc. No. 2 at 4. 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lewis v. Fuentes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-fuentes-ared-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack