United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
OPINION & ORDER 
Larry Lenn Moore, Jr. ("Moore") is a prisoner in
the Arkansas Department of Correction. On November 17, 2015,
he commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging
that Defendants Food Service Coordinator Felicia King
("King"), Jail Administrator Matt Hall
("Hall"), and Sheriff Marty Boyd ("Boyd")
violated his constitutional rights while he was an inmate in
the Craighead County Detention Center ("CCDC").
Docs. 1 & 6. By way of relief, Moore seeks $50,
000 in unspecified damages. Id.
screening mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court: (1)
dismissed, without prejudice, all of Moore's claims
against Hall and Boyd; and (2) allowed Moore to proceed with
his claim that King sexually harassed him in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Docs. 8 & 14. The Court has
now appointed counsel to represent Moore and King, and set
the case for a Non-Jury trial in Jonesboro, Arkansas on
January 22, 2018. Docs. 35 & 47.
has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the sexual
harassment claim, along with a supporting Statement of
Undisputed Facts and Brief. Docs. 50 & 51. Moore
has filed a Response, a Brief in Support, and a Statement of
Disputed Facts. Docs. 52, 53, & 54. King has
filed a Reply. Doc. 55. Thus, the issues are fully
joined and ripe for resolution.
facts,  viewed in the light most favorable to
Moore,  are as follows:
1. In August of 2015, jail administrators assigned Moore to
work in the CCDC kitchen as a cook, which Moore characterizes
as a "beneficial trusty position." Doc. 6 at
2. Moore was supervised in the CCDC kitchen by King, who was
the Food Service Coordinator. Her duties included preparing
and serving meals, as well as "oversee[ing] all general
kitchen operations." Doc. 51, Ex. 2 at 2. King
was employed by Tiger Correctional Services, Inc., a private
company that had an "exclusive" contractual
agreement to provide food services to inmates at the CCDC.
Doc. 51, Ex. 1 at 1.
3. While working in the CCDC kitchen, King
"coerced" Moore into having a sexual relationship
with her by giving him Xanax and threatening to fire him from
his position as a cook. Doc. 6 at 2-3.
4. Moore admits that he "fell in love" with King
and that "things started getting serious." Doc.
1 at 4.
5. However, sometime in November of 2015, Moore decided to
"distance himself" from King because he "was
afraid of getting in trouble." Id.
6. On or about November 5, 2015, Moore ended his sexual
relationship with King. Doc. 6 at 2. Later that day,
Moore "was terminated by King from his position in the
Jail's kitchen." Doc. 54 at 2. Moore
immediately told Officer Peaster and Jail Administrator Hall
that King fired him because he ended his sexual relationship
with her and that she had given him Xanax to entice him into
having sexual relations. Doc. 6. Officer Peaster
gave Moore a drug test, which confirmed that he had recently
taken Xanax. Id. Hall then began a
"C.I.D." investigation, which ultimately resulted
in King's termination. Id.
argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because: (1)
she was not acting under color of state law; and (2) the
facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Moore, do not
establish a constitutional violation. Doc. 51. For the
reasons explained below, both of those arguments are without
Color of State Law
1983 action can only be filed against a state actor, such as
an employee of a state or local government, or a person
acting under "color of state law." See 42
U.S.C. § 1983; Scheeler v. City of St. Cloud,
Minn.,402 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir. 2005). The parties
agree that King was not a "state actor, " because
she was not employed by Craighead County. However, ...