Walker v. Martin

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedMay 23, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-01026
StatusUnknown

This text of Walker v. Martin (Walker v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walker v. Martin, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

HENRY WALKER, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:25-cv-1026

SHERIFF LEROY MARTIN; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GEAN SIEGER; DEPUTY SHERIFF JERRY MANESS; and JAIL ADMINISTRATOR M. STERNISHA DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 8. Upon preservice screening of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Judge Bryant recommends that: 1. The official capacity claims against all Defendants be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The individual capacity claims against Separate Defendants Leroy Martin, Jerry Maness, and M. Sternisha be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, these Defendants will be dismissed from this action. 3. The individual capacity claim against Defendant Gean Sieger for denial of medical care be allowed to proceed. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 11. The only discernible argument Plaintiff makes is that the official capacity claims should not be dismissed because all Defendants were clearly working in their employment during the events underlying his claims. However, official capacity claims require that an official policy or unofficial custom caused a constitutional violation, not merely that an individual acted under color of law when allegedly depriving a plaintiff of their rights. See Babbit as Trustee for Bild v. Capra, 59 F.4th 349, 354 (8th Cir. 2023) (noting that official capacity claims require the constitutional violation to be the result of an official policy) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations regarding any official policy. Upon review, the Court hereby adopts Judge Bryant’s R&R (ECF No. 8) in toto.

Accordingly, all individual and official capacity claims against Separate Defendants Leroy Martin, Jerry Maness, and M. Sternisha are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendant Gean Sieger are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Only Plaintiff’s individual capacity claim against Defendant Gean Sieger for denial of medical care may proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of May, 2025.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

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

Related

Lisa Brabbit v. Frank Capra
59 F.4th 349 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Walker v. Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-martin-arwd-2025.