United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS, DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT PETERS, AND
ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HIS CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT PATTERSON SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
Guirola, Jr., Chief U.S. District Judge.
the Court is the  Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Valrie Peters, a government official sued in her individual
capacity. Having considered the pleadings, Plaintiff Richard
Moore's testimony at the screening hearing held in this
matter, the Motion, and the relevant law, the Court is of the
opinion that the Motion should be granted and all claims
against Peters should be dismissed. The Court will also order
Plaintiff Moore to show cause why his remaining claims should
not also be dismissed.
while a federal prisoner, filed a “Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”
against multiple defendants and later amended the Complaint
to add more defendants. Moore was granted permission to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
screening hearing, the Court dismissed all Defendants but
Peters, who was Moore's federal probation officer, and
Defendant Deputy Patterson, who Moore alleges is a deputy
with the Pontotoc County Sheriff's Office. Moore states that
he “was released to the custody of the United States
Probation Department in August 2013 to serve 3 years of
supervised release.” (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). He further
states that Defendant Peters told him
that it was unlikely he would succeed on supervised release.
Ms. Peters stated that due to the fact that the Plaintiff not
admitting [sic] to the crime to which he was accused
and taking [the case] to trial, that the judge . . . and U.S.
Probation office had rather Plaintiff spend the rest of his
life in prison.
(See Id. at 1-2).
claims that “[o]ver the course of 2 ½ years, . .
. Peters made several sexual advances toward” Moore,
made sexual comments, and asked him sexually personal
questions. (See Id. at 2-3). He contends that
“[o]n 3 different occasions, ” Peters demanded
that he take a “urine test where she entered a restroom
alone with” Moore and watched Moore's
“exposed penis and made profane conversation and
statements.” (See Id. at 2). He also alleges
that Peters told him that if he reported “the sexual
advances, she would have [the judge] violate his probation
and would make sure plaintiff went to a prison where his life
would be a living hell.” (See Id. at 2-3). The
Complaint contains other allegations about comments Peters
allegedly made to Moore or things she allegedly told him.
(See Id. at 3-4).
Moore states that Peters worked with Moore's roommate,
Tanner Vaughan, “to attempt to ‘set-up'
[Moore] in order to violate his probation. (See
id.). He states that Peters then “coordinated a
full blown ‘RAID' with over two dozen law
enforcement officers at Plaintiff's residence.”
(See Id. at 4). Moore alleges that “Peters
located 3 ‘sex toys' shaped like a penis in
Vaughan's bedroom [and she] cut open each ‘toy'
and sadistically laid them out . . . in open view to send a
‘message' to” Moore. (See Id. at
claims that Vaughan told Peters that Moore was going to file
“an official complaint on Peters outlining the sexual
harassment[, ]” and that thereafter U.S. Marshals came
to his home “and arrested him for a so-called probation
violation” based on false accusations by Peters.
(See Id. at 5-6). At the screening hearing, Moore
elaborated that he believed Peters was retaliating against
him for not having sex with her by making “ridiculous
claims of a probation violation in order to control and,
ultimately, shut me down.” (See Hearing Tr.
was found guilty of multiple probation violations, but
contends that Peters “made up stories and made sure
[he] lost his home, auto, and all vested interest in a large
real estate purchase and causing the property to go in to
default. Peters conducted several interviews with community
members ranting about who he was having sex with and what he
had ‘against her.'” (See Compl. 6,
ECF No. 1).
screening hearing, Moore again stated that Peters made
“bogus assertions” at the probation revocation
hearing “and the Court went along with that.”
(See Hearing Tr. 13:21-14:2). He testified:
“Which, nothing could be further from the truth. It had
everything to do with what the underlying deal was, which was
she was divorced. And she spent a great deal of time - it
became some type of obsessed fatal attraction.”
(Id. at 14:3-6); (see also Id. at
13:16-17). Moore alleges that he has suffered permanent
damages “by being harassed sexually, mental torture of
2 ½ years of being told that no one will believe a
‘pervert' over a federal office. Plaintiff was and
is being treated like an animal and thrown in prison because
he refused to have sex with . . . Peters on several
occasions.” (See Compl. 6-7, ECF No. 1).
respect to Defendant Patterson, Moore states that Patterson
colluded with Peters “in order to set a false and
manufactured ‘trap' to violate [Moore]'s
supervised release.” (Mot. To Amend 1, ECF No. 6).
Moore claims that he was sent to “federal prison on
false claims made by” Peters and Patterson. (See
Id. at 3).
has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court advised Plaintiff Moore
at the screening hearing that if he continued to represent
himself, he would be expected to respond to motions. However,
instead of filing a substantive response to the Motion, Moore
filed a two-page “Answer” to the Court's July
17, 2017  Order to Show Cause, stating in pertinent part
that he “affirms his ...