Smith v. Arnett

E.D. Arkansas

Smith v. Arnett

DecidedJuly 20, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00081

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Arnett (Smith v. Arnett) 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

Smith v. Arnett, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION DENNIS JAMES SMITH, SR. PLAINTIFF ADC #120631 v. CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00081-BSM CALVIN ARNETT, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER From the pleadings, it appears that Dennis James Smith, Sr. is alleging that he is serving a sentence of life of imprisonment and that he is attempting to research his case in the law library at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction.

The library, however, does not have the books or other resources he needs and he has not been able to receive help despite filing a grievance at the prison. Smith’s complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements for a section 1983 access to the courts claim. Consequently, after performing a de novo of the record, United States

Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 8] is adopted and this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is recommended that dismissal count as a strike for purposes for 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel [Doc. Nos. 11, 12] are denied

because he does not have a right to counsel in post-conviction relief proceedings. See Pollard v. Delo, 28 F.3d 887, 888 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494 (1991)). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2022.

Brrr 2 Ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION DENNIS JAMES SMITH, SR. PLAINTIFF ADC #120631 v. CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00081-BSM CALVIN ARNETT, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER From the pleadings, it appears that Dennis James Smith, Sr. is alleging that he is serving a sentence of life of imprisonment and that he is attempting to research his case in the law library at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction.

The library, however, does not have the books or other resources he needs and he has not been able to receive help despite filing a grievance at the prison. Smith’s complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements for a section 1983 access to the courts claim. Consequently, after performing a de novo of the record, United States

Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 8] is adopted and this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is recommended that dismissal count as a strike for purposes for 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel [Doc. Nos. 11, 12] are denied

because he does not have a right to counsel in post-conviction relief proceedings. See Pollard v. Delo, 28 F.3d 887, 888 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494 (1991)). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2022.

Brrr 2 Ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Arnett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-arnett-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack