Marlin Vann Martin Rogers v. Dexter Payne, Director, Supervisor, Arkansas Department of Correction; and Michelle Gray, Warden, North Central Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction

Summary

This document is a Recommended Disposition from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in Rogers v. Payne, Case No. 3:24-CV-00218-BSM-BBM. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Marlin Vann Martin Rogers’s pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint without prejudice for failure to state claims involving failure to protect, supervisory corrective inaction, and official-capacity liability. The Recommendation also recommends that the dismissal count as a Prison Litigation Reform Act strike and certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. Rogers failed to state a plausible failure-to-protect claim against Warden Gray because he did not allege facts showing that Gray knew of a substantial risk to Rogers before the first attack or knew that Rogers faced such a risk at the facility where the second attack occurred.
2. Rogers failed to state a claim against Director Payne in his individual capacity because the complaint did not allege Payne's personal involvement in a constitutional violation and relied instead on Payne's supervisory position.
3. Rogers failed to state supervisory corrective-inaction claims against Gray and Payne because he did not allege that either supervisor received notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts by a subordinate.
4. Rogers failed to state official-capacity claims because he did not plausibly allege that an Arkansas Department of Correction policy, custom, or failure to train caused an underlying constitutional violation.
5. The complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the dismissal should count as a strike under the PLRA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rogers plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Warden Gray based on the December 20, 2023 attack or the later attack at the East Arkansas Regional Unit.
2. Whether Rogers plausibly alleged individual or supervisory liability against Director Payne based on Payne's supervisory position and alleged responsibility for appointing staff.
3. Whether Rogers plausibly alleged supervisory corrective inaction by Gray or Payne based on notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts.
4. Whether Rogers plausibly alleged an official-capacity claim based on an Arkansas Department of Correction policy, custom, or failure to train.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice at PLRA screening and counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Disposition

dismissed