Webster v. Tate

E.D. Arkansas

Webster v. Tate

DecidedMay 17, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00088

StatusUnknown

This text of Webster v. Tate (Webster v. Tate) 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

Webster v. Tate, (E.D. Ark. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION GARY LEON WEBSTER PLAINTIFF ADC #114018 v. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-00088 BSM JEAN TATE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Gary Webster’s lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 6] is denied. Webster filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 [Doc.

Nos. 1, 7] claiming that his former landlady, Jean Tate, and property manager, Emit Gains, violated his human and civil rights by entering his home without permission and stealing items from him. Doc. No. 2 at 4–6. Because Webster is currently incarcerated, his complaint must be screened. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915. A lawsuit must be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted

under color of state law. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). If the defendants are private actors, the plaintiff must show that they were “willful participant[s] in a joint activity with the State in denying plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University, Minn., 747 F.3d 532, 536 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). At the very least, he must show that “there was a mutual understanding, or a meeting of the minds, between the private party and state actor.” Pendleton v. St. Louis County, 178 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). Based on Webster’s complaint, the defendants are private actors and nowhere does he allege a meeting of the minds or joint activity between the defendants and any state actor. Accordingly, Webster has failed to state a section 1983 claim against defendants and his lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. This dismissal counts as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of May 2019.

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 JONESBORO DIVISION GARY LEON WEBSTER PLAINTIFF ADC #114018 v. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-00088 BSM JEAN TATE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Gary Webster’s lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 6] is denied. Webster filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 [Doc.

Nos. 1, 7] claiming that his former landlady, Jean Tate, and property manager, Emit Gains, violated his human and civil rights by entering his home without permission and stealing items from him. Doc. No. 2 at 4–6. Because Webster is currently incarcerated, his complaint must be screened. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915. A lawsuit must be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted

under color of state law. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). If the defendants are private actors, the plaintiff must show that they were “willful participant[s] in a joint activity with the State in denying plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University, Minn., 747 F.3d 532, 536 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). At the very least, he must show that “there was a mutual understanding, or a meeting of the minds, between the private party and state actor.” Pendleton v. St. Louis County, 178 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). Based on Webster’s complaint, the defendants are private actors and nowhere does he allege a meeting of the minds or joint activity between the defendants and any state actor. Accordingly, Webster has failed to state a section 1983 claim against defendants and his lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. This dismissal counts as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of May 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

John Pendleton Russell Signorino v. St. Louis County Economic Council of St. Louis County Robert P. McCulloch James Redmond, James E. Baker Judith K. Parker Michael Baker Ronald A. Battelle Harold Klein Howard Eaton George Damos Roger Melton, Dennis Coleman, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, John Pendleton Russell Signorino v. St. Louis County Economic Council of St. Louis County Robert P. McCulloch James Redmond, James E. Baker Judith K. Parker Michael Baker Ronald A. Battelle Harold Klein Howard Eaton George Damos Roger Melton Dennis Coleman, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

178 F.3d 1007 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa

557 F.3d 564 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Robin Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University

747 F.3d 532 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Webster v. Tate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-tate-ared-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack