Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_20-cv-06034/USCOURTS-arwd-6_20-cv-06034-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

ROY GRAY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:20-CV-06034

VERONIQUE MOORE DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United 

States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and 

Recommendation. 

The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to 

screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 13, 2020. (ECF 

No. 2). It was transferred to this District on March 19, 2020. (ECF No. 3). On March 20, 2020, 

the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed in forma pauperis Application 

and an Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff did so on April 1, 2020. (ECF No’s. 6-9). 

Plaintiff isincarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) Ouachita River 

Unit. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Moore violated his constitutional rights when she forced him 

to have sex with her on January 11, 2020, in direct violation of prison policy and the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act. (ECF No. 9 at 4). Plaintiff alleges this occurred on other occasions while Brittany 

Case 6:20-cv-06034-RTD Document 13 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Mitchell “watched out for” them. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Moore is no longer an 

ADC employee, but continues to write to him. (Id. at 2). 

Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant Moore in both her official and personal capacity. (Id.

at 4). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 7). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being 

issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are 

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it 

does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted 

sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 

541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff 

must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 

(8th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are subject to dismissal. Plaintiff identifies Defendant 

Moore as a corporal in the Arkansas Department of Correction at the time of his allegations. States 

and state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 

(1990); Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613, 

618 (8th Cir. 2008). “This bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable.” Williams v.

Case 6:20-cv-06034-RTD Document 13 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 599-600 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 

(1986)). “Congress did not abrogate constitutional sovereign immunity when enacting the law that 

was to become section 1983.” Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 493 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Quern v. 

Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979)). “A suit against state employees in their official capacities is 

the functional equivalent of a suit against the State.” Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th 

Cir. 2013). As Defendant Moore was an employee of the Arkansas Department of Correction at 

the time of the alleged rape incidents, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against her are subject to 

dismissal. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendant 

Moore be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Moore 

in her individual capacity should proceed.

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in 

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

DATED this 3rd day of April 2020. 

/s/ Barry A. Bryant 

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-06034-RTD Document 13 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>