Sutterfield v. Dye et al, No. 3:2020cv03029 - Document 9 (W.D. Ark. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE claims against Dye; Cassell; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE claims against Foster. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on April 23, 2020. (lgd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sutterfield v. Dye et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION PLAINTIFF ARLIS SUTTERFIELD V. CASE NO. 3:20-CV-3029 DEPUTY SHERIFF TROY DYE; CODY CASSELL, Probation and Parole; and JUDGE HARRY G. FOSTER DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintif Arlis Sutterfield pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintif proceeds pro se and in fona paupeis. The case is before the Cout or presevice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Cout has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or oficer or employee of a governmental entity. I. BACKGROUND According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1 ), Deputy Dye and Probation Oficer Cassell failed to use proper procedures and protocol and violated Plaintif's Fith Amendment rights. Id. at 4. Plaintif alleges that he is on the verge of losing his house and propeties, is going through a divorce, and is unable to talk to his son due to the "corruption the oficer put into my wife['s] and child['s] heads." Id. Plaintif claims that on December 6, 2019, 1 he drove himself to the Searcy County Jail because he had heard there was an incident where he was alleged to have been in 1 The Complaint in error lists the date as December 6, 2020. 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
