United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to
the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
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).
filed his Complaint and Amended Complaints in the Eastern
District of Arkansas in January of 2018. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3).
On January 23, 2018, the case was transferred to this
District. (ECF No. 4). On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was
directed to file an in forma pauperis application
and an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 7, 8). Plaintiff filed
his Amended Complaint and his portion of the IFP application
on February 2, 2018. (ECF Nos. 9, 10). After several orders,
(ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17), the inmate certificate portion of the
IFP application was completed by the Arkansas Department of
Correction (ADC) and filed on April 11, 2018. (ECF No. 18).
alleges that Defendant Ramsey, a psychologist for the ADC
Ouachita River Correctional Unit (ORCU), harassed him while
he was incarcerated in the RPU Unit at ORCU. (ECF No. 9). He
alleges that he made it quite clear to Defendant Ramsey that
he did not wish to participate in “the program”
at RPU, and that it was his right to refuse to participate.
(ECF No. 9 at 5, 6). Despite this, Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Ramsey engaged in voyeurism,  and harassment,
including sexual harassment, against him. (ECF No. 9 at 4-6).
alleges Defendant Ramsey committed these acts during her
thrice-weekly rounds when she came to his one-person cell in
RPU to speak with him while he was naked. (ECF No. 9 at 4).
He alleges she engaged in voyeurism when she gave
“sexual eye contact” to his penis, despite him
telling her that it was inappropriate for her to speak to a
naked man. (ECF No. 9 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that she
flirted with him by stating “I don't mind speaking
with you” and “your [sic] very tall.”
Plaintiff alleges this constituted sexual harassment. (ECF
No. 9 at 5). Plaintiff also alleges that he told her that he
refused to talk or participate in the program, but she told
him it was her job to check on him. Plaintiff alleges this
constituted harassment, and she was doing it to disturb him
during his court appeal. (ECF No. 9 at 6).
proceeds against Defendant Ramsey in her personal capacity
for all claims. (ECF No. 9 at 4-6). He seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. (ECF No. 9 at 7).
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.
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).
allegations of voyeurism and sexual harassment are frivolous.
Sexual abuse or harassment of an inmate can violate the
Eighth Amendment if the alleged abuse or harassment caused
“pain” and, “as a subjective matter, . . .
the prison official in question acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.” See Berry v. Oswalt,
143 F.3d 1127, 1131-33 (8th Cir. 1998) (repeated non-routine
pat-downs and subsequent rape of female inmate by male prison
guard violated Eighth Amendment); but see Freitas v.
Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1338 (8th Cir. 1997) (consensual
physical relationship between inmate and prison official did
not cause pain, despite the official's supervisory
allegations provide no support for a claim of sexual
harassment. Instead, his allegations indicate only that
Defendant Ramsey came to his cell during her medical rounds
and attempted to engage him in conversation as part of her
job as a psychologist. That Plaintiff happened to be naked in
the cell, and told her he did not wish to talk or participate
in “the program, ” ...