Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES PLUNKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PARHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 57, 62)

Plaintiff Charles Plunkett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 57) be granted because 

Defendants’ conduct during the clothed pat-down search of Plaintiff on March 31, 2017 and the 

unclothed visual body cavity search of Plaintiff on September 24, 2018, which were conducted 

for a legitimate penological purpose of prison safety, did “not rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation under Ninth Circuit precedent, even if Plaintiff understandably experienced it as 

humiliating.” (Doc. No. 62 at 11.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id.

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 69 Filed 12/04/24 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

at 18.) After receiving an extension of time in which to do so, on September 16, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 66.) On October 11, 

2024, Defendants filed a response thereto. (Doc. No. 67.)

In her1objections, Plaintiff merely repeats arguments that she had presented in her 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and those arguments were already 

considered and properly rejected in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 66.) 

For example, in her objections, Plaintiff again argues that Defendant Andrade violated her right to 

be free from sexual harassment when he told her to shake out her bra during the March 31, 2017 

search, because doing so would cause her breasts to fall out and be exposed for all to see. (Id. at 

2–3.) But as the magistrate judge correctly explained in the findings and recommendations, 

“requiring an inmate to move their brasserie away from their body as part of a random clothed 

search is not per se unreasonable,” and even if Defendant Andrade told Plaintiff to lift her bra, 

“an isolated incident requiring Plaintiff to briefly expose her breasts to male officers and other 

inmates does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” (Doc. No. 62 at 11.) Plaintiff’s 

objections simply do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ response thereto, the court concludes that the

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2024 (Doc. No. 62) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 57) is granted;

3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants; and

/////

1 Plaintiff, a transgender inmate, used she/her pronouns in her opposition to Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, leading the magistrate judge to likewise use she/her pronouns for Plaintiff 

in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 62 at 1–2, n.1.)

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 69 Filed 12/04/24 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

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 69 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3