Powell v. Arkansas, State of

E.D. Arkansas

Powell v. Arkansas, State of

DecidedNovember 7, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-01058

StatusUnknown

This text of Powell v. Arkansas, State of (Powell v. Arkansas, State of) 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

Powell v. Arkansas, State of, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

TASHYRA POWELL PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-1058 JM

STATE OF ARKANSAS; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Tashyra Powell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (Doc. 1); see Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). She reports no income and little savings. The law requires that I screen her complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Ms. Powell argues that her parental rights were illegally terminated and seeks the return of her son. (Doc. 2). Ms. Powell cannot get relief in federal court for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Powell may not seek redress in federal court for issues related to custody. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). Also, a public records search reveals that the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Ms. Powell’s parental rights in September 2020. Powell v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Serv., 2020 Ark. App. 438. As a result, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 531-32 (2011). Finally, Ms. Powell has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as she has not identified any federal law that has been violated. Ms. Powell’s complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice, and an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 7" day of November, 2022.

at ony + JUDGE

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

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

TASHYRA POWELL PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-1058 JM

STATE OF ARKANSAS; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Tashyra Powell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (Doc. 1); see Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). She reports no income and little savings. The law requires that I screen her complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Ms. Powell argues that her parental rights were illegally terminated and seeks the return of her son. (Doc. 2). Ms. Powell cannot get relief in federal court for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Powell may not seek redress in federal court for issues related to custody. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). Also, a public records search reveals that the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Ms. Powell’s parental rights in September 2020. Powell v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Serv., 2020 Ark. App. 438. As a result, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 531-32 (2011). Finally, Ms. Powell has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as she has not identified any federal law that has been violated. Ms. Powell’s complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice, and an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 7" day of November, 2022.

at ony + JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Powell v. Arkansas, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-arkansas-state-of-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack