Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02362/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02362-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX COLON, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

C. WILSON, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-2362 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), filed a complaint

for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that, while he was incarcerated at

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) in 2007, his mother and fiancée were

subjected to inappropriate body searches by various prison officials. According

to plaintiff, his mother and fiancée were told that the searches were required

before any visitation could be allowed because officials had received a

confidential tip that they were trying to smuggle contraband into the prison.

Plaintiff learned about the body searches only last year, but since has experienced

"emotional trauma" and "mental anguish" causing him "intense pain on one side

of his head, accompanied by tearing of the eye and a runny nose." Compl. at 6.

Case 3:10-cv-02362-CRB Document 17 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Per order filed on June 7, 2010, the court screened and dismissed the

complaint for failure to state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b). The court explained:

It is well established that "[n]o Federal civil action may be

brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other correctional

facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody

without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

There is no showing or indication of a qualifying physical injury

here. Plaintiff's alleged physical symptoms – headache, teary eye

and runny nose – are not sufficiently separate from his allegations

of emotional trauma and mental anguish to qualify as "a prior

showing of physical injury" under § 1997e(e). See Davis v. District

of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that

"somatic manifestations of emotional distress" such as weight loss,

appetite loss and insomnia cannot establish physical injury under

§ 1997e(e)). Nor do they amount to anything more than de minimis

injuries insufficient to satisfy § 1997e(e). See Oliver v. Keller, 289

F.3d 623, 627-29 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that back and leg pain

caused by sitting on cement floor, undefined injuries from being

assaulted by another prisoner and a painful canker sore were de

minimis injuries insufficient to satisfy § 1997e(e)).

Plaintiff's mother and fiancée may be able to pursue a §

1983 claim for their alleged treatment by SVSP officials. But the

claim must be brought by them in a separate action. Plaintiff has

no standing to bring it on their behalf. See Powers v. Ohio, 499

U.S. 400, 410 (1991). 

June 7, 2010 Order at 2-3.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the court's order and corresponding

entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) arguing that §

1997e(e) does not bar a claim for nominal and punitive damages for alleged

constitutional violations. 

Per order filed on August 9, 2010, the court denied the motion and

explained:

The Ninth Circuit has held that if a plaintiff "has actionable claims

for compensatory, nominal or punitive damages – premised on

violations of his [constitutional] rights, and not on any alleged

mental or emotional injury – [said] claims are not barred by §

1997e(e)." Oliver, 289 F.3d at 630. But plaintiff states no such

actionable claim. His assertion that defendants' body searches of

his mother and fiancée "infringed upon" his rights to freedom of

Case 3:10-cv-02362-CRB Document 17 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

association and to maintain familial relationships does not compel a

different conclusion. It simply cannot be said that defendants' body

searches of his mother and fiancée after a confidential tip (and

eventual warrant from the superior court) amounted to such a

severe, permanent or arbitrary restriction on plaintiff's rights to

freedom of association and/or to maintain familial relationships so

as to have violated his constitutional rights. See Overton v.

Bazzetta, 539 U. S. 126, 131-32, 136-17 (2003) (noting that right to

freedom of association is among the rights least compatible with

incarceration and that withdrawal of visitation privileges for limited

periods is one of the restraints that should be expected as a

consequence of incarceration). 

Aug. 9, 2010 Order at 2-3.

Plaintiff did not appeal or again move for reconsideration; rather, he

submitted a proposed amended complaint claiming to correct the deficiencies of

the original complaint. The proposed amended complaint does not. For

essentially the same reasons noted in the court’s two prior orders, the proposed

amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 5, 2011 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.10\Colon, F1.recon2.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-02362-CRB Document 17 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 3