Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00508/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00508-5/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LISA BELYEW, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KORY L. HONEA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-0508 AC P 

ORDER 

 

Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee and current state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil 

rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 17, 2019, the 

complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff has now filed 

a first amended complaint. ECF No. 23. 

I. First Amended Complaint 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

The amended complaint names three defendants: Butte County Sheriff Honea and officers 

Moreland and Spencer. ECF No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff asserts claims of unreasonable search and 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 9
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 

seizure and retaliation against defendant Moreland and excessive force, unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement, and retaliation against Spencer. Id. at 3-5. She further asserts that 

Honea was responsible for unspecified policies as the Sheriff. Id. at 5. 

 The first claim in the complaint is similar, though not identical, to the claim in the original 

complaint, while the second and third claims present new allegations. In Claim One, Plaintiff 

alleges defendant Moreland forced her to perform a squat-and-cough procedure multiple times as 

a part of a strip search, despite being informed that Plaintiff could not bend at the knee because of 

severe back and knee problems. ECF No. 23 at 3. Moreland then told Plaintiff to place her face 

on the floor of the shower, which Plaintiff objected to because she did not want to be exposed to 

disease, prompting Moreland to threaten to bring other officers and “‘make [her]’ do it.” Id. 

Plaintiff was then forced to “cough and spread [her] anus and vagina until [Moreland] could ‘see 

inside.’” Id. The search caused Plaintiff extreme psychological trauma because she has an 

extensive history of sexual and physical abuse and rape and her knee gave out causing physical 

pain. Id. 

 Claim Two alleges that after Plaintiff was transported back from her trial readiness 

conference, defendant Spencer used excessive force against her and placed her in an unsanitary 

holding cell in retaliation for filing a grievance. Id. at 4. Spencer “slammed [her] up against the 

wall and twisted [her] left wrist until it ‘popped.’” Id. When Plaintiff complained, Spencer 

stated, “‘It’s not meant to be comfortable. You shouldn’t have told on GRAY,’” referring to a 

grievance Plaintiff had filed regarding another correctional officer. Id. Defendant Spencer then 

allegedly placed Plaintiff in a holding cell covered in feces and various bodily fluids where she 

was unable to sit or lay down and she was left there for fourteen hours. Id. During her time in the 

cell, plaintiff overheard officers, including Spencer, making comments about how she filed a lot 

of grievances. Id. 

Finally, Claim Three alleges that in a subsequent search, Moreland retaliated against 

Plaintiff for filing grievances by making her repeatedly squat and cough during a strip search 

despite properly complying the first time. Id. at 5. When Plaintiff went to put her clothes on, she 

heard either Moreland or the officer with her whisper, “‘See if she keeps tellin’ on us.’” Id. 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 9
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 

Plaintiff also generally alleges that “Honea is the Sheriff and these are the policies put in place as 

Sheriff in control of the Butte County Jail.” Id. 

II. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

A. Unreasonable Searches 

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and that right is not lost 

to convicted inmates. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, 

“pretrial detainees . . . retain at least those constitutional rights that [the courts] have held are 

enjoyed by convicted prisoners.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). However, 

“incarcerated prisoners retain a limited right to bodily privacy.” Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 

F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). 

A detention facility’s strip-search policy is analyzed using the test for reasonableness 

outlined in Bell v. Wolfish, as “[t]he Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches.” 

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in 

original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 558). Under Bell, the court 

must balance “the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the 

search entails.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 559. In order to do so, courts must consider “the scope of the 

particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the 

place in which it is conducted.” Id. 

“Correctional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a 

standard part of the intake process,” and the Supreme Court has held that all detainees, when 

joining a general detained population, can be subject to strip searches even without reasonable 

suspicion that a specific individual is concealing weapons or other contraband. Florence v. Bd. of 

Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 30-39 (2012). Further, strip searches that are limited to 

“visual inspection,” even if “invasive and embarrassing,” can be resolved in favor of the 

institution. Bull, 595 F.3d at 975 (holding that visual strip searches that are held in a 

“professional manner and in a place that afforded privacy” and done to prevent the smuggling of 

contraband did not violate Fourth Amendment). However, any searches done for the purpose of 

harassment are not constitutionally valid—the Supreme Court has held that “intentional 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 9
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 

4 

harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated” by the Fourth Amendment’s 

protections. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 528 (1984). 

Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against defendant Moreland for violating her right 

to be free from unreasonable searches on two separate occasions. ECF No. 23 at 3, 5. During the 

first search, Moreland required Plaintiff to complete the search in the standard manner despite 

being advised of Plaintiff’s back and knee problems and then threatened Plaintiff with force. 

Plaintiff’s knee eventually gave out when she tried to comply with the orders. During the second 

search, Moreland required Plaintiff to unnecessarily repeat the procedure multiple times as 

retaliation for Plaintiff’s grievances. While the searches appear to have been justified due to 

Plaintiff’s entry to the jail from other locations, the allegations regarding the manner in which the 

searches were carried out support an inference of intentional harassment. Defendant Moreland 

will therefore be required to respond to these allegations. 

B. Retaliation 

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985). 

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state 

actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) 

that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. 

Rhodes v. Robinson ̧408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff has stated viable retaliation claims against both Moreland and Spencer and they 

will be required to respond. 

C. Conditions of Confinement 

In examining the conditions of pretrial detention, the question “is whether those 

conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 535. “Absent a showing of 

an expressed intent to punish, on the part of detention facility officials, that determination 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 9
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 

5 

generally will turn on ‘whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be 

connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative 

purpose assigned [to it].’” Id. at 538 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). “Convicted 

prisoners and pre-trial detainees are also entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, 

medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982)), overruled on other 

grounds by Marley v. United States, 548 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Spencer placed her in an unsanitary cell where she 

was unable to lie down or sit for fourteen hours, as a punishment for filing grievances, states a 

claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement and Spencer will be required to respond to 

the claim. 

D. Excessive Force 

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee alleging excessive force must show 

“that the force purposely or knowing used against [her] was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley 

v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). The “objective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts 

and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 

(1989)). 

 Plaintiff’s allegations against Spencer are sufficient to state a claim for excessive force 

and Spencer will therefore be required to respond to the claim. 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Defendant Honea 

“To state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law.” Long v. 

County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 

48 (1988)). The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of 

the defendants and the violation of rights alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Liability under § 1983 may not be based on a respondeat 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 9
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 

6 

superior or vicarious liability theory. Taylor v List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation 

omitted). Nevertheless, participation in causing a constitutional violation need not always be 

direct. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). Supervisory liability may exist 

without any personal participation if the official implemented “a policy so deficient that the 

policy itself is a repudiation of the constitutional rights and is the moving force of the 

constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(citations and quotations marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 

U.S. 825 (1994). “Vague and conclusory allegations” concerning the involvement of official 

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient to state a claim. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s only allegation against Honea is that he put in place unspecified policies as the 

Sheriff in charge of the Butte County Jail. ECF 7, No. 23 at 5. To the extent Plaintiff may be 

attempting to allege that Moreland and Spencer’s conduct was the result of policies put in place 

by Honea, she has once again failed to identify the policies at issue and has simply continued to 

allege that Honea is responsible as Sheriff. As Plaintiff was advised in the previous screening 

order, such conclusory assertions are insufficient to support a claim against Honea, see ECF No. 

19 at 4-5, 7, 9, and must be dismissed. 

B. No Further Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant 

must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citing 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after careful consideration, 

it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to 

amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06. 

Despite being advised as to what additional information she needed to provide to state a 

claim against Honea for unconstitutional policies or practices, Plaintiff has failed to add any 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 9
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 

7 

additional information related to this defendant and has continued to make only conclusory 

assertions that Honea is responsible as Sheriff. Since it appears that Plaintiff has no additional 

information to add, the claims against Honea should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

IV. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

Some of the allegations in your first amended complaint state claims against the 

defendants and some do not. Your allegations against Moreland and Spencer state claims for 

relief and they will be required to respond to those claims. 

Your allegations against defendant Honea are not sufficient because you have not 

explained what policy or practice violated your rights or shown that Moreland and Spencer’s 

actions were based on a policy implemented by Honea. It is being recommended that the claims 

against Honea be dismissed without leave to amend because it does not look like there are 

additional facts that you can allege to state claims for relief. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 

action. 

2. Service is appropriate for defendants Moreland and Spencer. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet, and a copy of the first amended complaint (ECF No. 23). 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 

 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 

 b. One completed summons; 

 c. One completed USM-285 form for each of the following defendants: Moreland 

and Spencer; and 

 d. Three copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed October 31, 2019. 

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal 

to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 9
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 

8 

payment of costs. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Honea be 

dismissed without leave to amend. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 30, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 9
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 

LISA BELYEW, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KORY L. HONEA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-0508 AC P 

 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order filed 

_____________________: 

 1 completed summons form 

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the complaint 

 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:17-cv-00508-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 9