Yancey v. Payne

E.D. Arkansas

Yancey v. Payne

DecidedJuly 8, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00514

StatusUnknown

This text of Yancey v. Payne (Yancey v. Payne) 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

Yancey v. Payne, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOHN B. YANCEY, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #95844

v. CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00514-BSM DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 3] is adopted. John Yancey’s complaint [Doc. No. 2] is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; it is recommended that this dismissal count as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 United States Code section 1915(g); and it is certified, pursuant to 28 United States Code section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. Moreover, Yancey’s request to amend his complaint in his response to the recommended disposition [Doc. No. 5] is denied as futile

because the proposed amendment would also not survive screening. See Bowman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1079 (W.D. Ark. 2017) (citing Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 686 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2012)) (proposed amendment to complaint is considered futile if it would not survive subsequent motion to dismiss); see also Harris v. Ruthenberg, 62 F. Supp. 3d 793, 800 (N.D. Ill 2014) (citing Turley v. Rednour, 729

F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013)) (judicial screening of a prisoner’s civil complaint against a government entity or government officer is done under the same standard applicable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2024.

arr A 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 CENTRAL DIVISION JOHN B. YANCEY, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #95844

v. CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00514-BSM DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 3] is adopted. John Yancey’s complaint [Doc. No. 2] is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; it is recommended that this dismissal count as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 United States Code section 1915(g); and it is certified, pursuant to 28 United States Code section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. Moreover, Yancey’s request to amend his complaint in his response to the recommended disposition [Doc. No. 5] is denied as futile

because the proposed amendment would also not survive screening. See Bowman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1079 (W.D. Ark. 2017) (citing Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 686 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2012)) (proposed amendment to complaint is considered futile if it would not survive subsequent motion to dismiss); see also Harris v. Ruthenberg, 62 F. Supp. 3d 793, 800 (N.D. Ill 2014) (citing Turley v. Rednour, 729

F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013)) (judicial screening of a prisoner’s civil complaint against a government entity or government officer is done under the same standard applicable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2024.

arr A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yancey v. Payne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yancey-v-payne-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack