Neal v. Arkansas, State of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ANDREW C. NEAL, JR. I PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:20-CV-00935-BSM STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Andrew Neal's incarceration triggers automatic screening of his complaint, regardless of his fee status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Neal’s complaint appears to request an investigation into the validity of his mother’s living trust. See Compl. at 19-20. Neal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but his allegations fail to state a section 1983 claim on which relief may be granted. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal citations omitted). There is no independent basis for Neal's state-law claims because there is not complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Neal's complaint [Doc. No. 1] is therefore dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This dismissal counts as a "strike" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE