Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01181/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01181-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH FILED 

United States Court of Appcnls 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

NOV 2 0 1995 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIE T. HAYES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MAJOR MARRIOTT; MAJOR SOARES; ) 

PERRY ROEKER; MR. GASKIL; ) 

RICHARD MAR, Assistant ) 

Superintendent; and the ) 

members of the special ) 

Operations Response Team of ) 

January 24, 1991, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

_A TRICK FISHER 

Clerlt 

No. 93-1181 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 91-Z-1344) 

Willie T. Hayes, Fremont Correctional Facility, pro se. 

Larry D. Tannenbaum, Office of the Attorney General, Denver, 

Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

HENRY, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff-appellant Willie T. Hayes appeals the district 

court's dismissal of his complaint alleging that state prison 

officials violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights during a January 1991 search of inmates at the Arkansas 

Valley Correctional Facility. Because the record does not support 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 1 
the grant of summary judgment against Mr. Hayes on his Fourth 

Amendment cl~im, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In his complaint, Mr. Hayes alleges that in January 1991 he 

was subjected to an unreasonable body cavity search that was 

videotaped by prison officials. He maintains that all inmates in 

the facility were searched in common areas in the presence of 

female corrections officers as well as "several nonessential 

personnel" such as case managers and secretaries. Rec. doc. 3, at 

4. Mr. Hayes's complaint describes the search in some detail: "I 

was required to open my mouth while a flashlight was shone waggle 

my tongue pull my cheeks out frisk my hair, pull my ears and lift 

my testicles. I was required to turn around lift my feet bend 

over and spread my buttocks while 100 people watched." Id. The 

complaint also alleges that prison officials improperly removed 

curtains from bathrooms, allowing inmates to be easily observed by 

female officers. 

Mr. Hayes's complaint asserts that the body cavity search and 

the removal of bathroom curtains violated his rights under the 

Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint names 

various prison officials as defendants and seeks declaratory, 

injunctive, and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (lOth Cir. 1978) 

(en bane) (per curiam), the district court directed the defendant 

prison officials to file a report responding to Mr. Hayes's 

allegations. After receiving the Martinez report, the court 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 2 
referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal 

of all of Mr~ Hayes's claims. The district court agreed with the 

magistrate's recommendations. The court dismissed the Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendment claims without prejudice, noting that there 

was a continuing class action suit addressing conditions of 

confinement at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, see 

Rec. doc. 29, at 1 (citing Arguello v. Romer, No. 88-C-1335 (D. 

Colo. May 6, 1991)) (granting class certification), and that Mr. 

Hayes should file a motion to intervene in the Arguello case if he 

wanted to pursue those claims.l As to Mr. Hayes's Fourth 

Amendment claim, the district court adopted the magistrate's 

recommendations and dismissed the claim with prejudice.2 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

On appeal, Mr. Hayes challenges the district court's 

dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim regarding the January 1991 

search.3 Initially, we note that in reviewing Mr. Hayes's 

1 The Arguello case was eventually settled. See Diaz v. Romer, 

801 F. Supp. 405 (D. Col. 1992), ~ff'd, 9 F.3d 116 (lOth Cir. 

19 9 3) . 

2 The magistrate judge had concluded that " [a] single or 

minimal viewing [of a search] by the opposite sex does not violate 

Plaintiff's right of privacy," Rec. doc. 20, at 4, and that the 

videotaping of the search was reasonable. The magistrate judge 

had also determined that Mr. Hayes's allegations regarding the 

removal of the bathroom curtains were insufficient to state a 

Fourth Amendment claim. 

3 In his appellate brief, Mr. Hayes does not challenge the 

district court's conclusion that the removal of the bathroom 

curtains did not violate his right to privacy under the Fourth 

Amendment. Accordingly, we do not examine that issue here. 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 3 
allegations, the magistrate judge relied on factual assertions in 

the Martinez .report submitted by the defendant prison officials. 

See Rec. doc. 20, at 4 (discussing the reasons given by prison 

officials for videotaping the search and the fact that only the 

warden had viewed the videotapes) . Several of those assertions 

were controverted by allegations in Mr. Hayes's verified 

complaint. As the magistrate judge considered matters outside the 

scope of the pleadings, we must treat the dismissal of Mr. Hayes's 

Fourth Amendment claim as a grant of summary judgment to the 

defendant prison officials. See Mosier v. Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521, 

1525 (lOth Cir. 1991); Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (lOth 

Cir. 1991). 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the 

same standard the district court should apply under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(c). Applied Genetics Int'l. Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., 

Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (lOth Cir. 1990). "Summary judgment is 

appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 

Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (lOth Cir. 1991). We 

must view the record in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing summary judgment. Deepwater Invs .. Ltd. v. Jackson Hole 

Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

These rules are applicable in determining whether a Martinez 

report establishes that prison officials are entitled to summary 

judgment: "A Martinez report is treated like an affidavit, and 

the court is not authorized to accept the factual findings of the 

prison investigation when the plaintiff has presented conflicting 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 4 
evidence. 11 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1111. 11 The plaintiff's complaint 

may also be treated as an affidavit if it alleges facts based on 

the plaintiff's personal knowledge and has been sworn under 

penalty of perjury. 11 Id. 

B. Prisoner Searches 

As the district court noted, the Fourth Amendment does not 

establish a right to privacy in prisoners' cells. Hudson v. 

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 522-30 (1984). However, prisoners do retain 

a limited constitutional right to bodily privacy, particularly as 

to searches viewed or conducted by members of the opposite sex. 

See Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1993); Levay 

v. Mills, 788 F.2d 1437, 1439 (lOth Cir. 1986); Cumbey v. Meachum, 

684 F.2d 712, 714 (lOth Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see also Canedy 

v. Boardman, 16 F. 3d 183, 185 (7th Cir. 1994) ( 11 ' [0] ne of the 

clearest forms of degradation in Western Society is to strip a 

person of his clothes. The right to be free from strip searches 

and degrading body inspections is thus basic to the concept of 

privacy.' 11 ) (quoting 3 Privacy Law and Practice ,I 25.02 [1] (George 

B. Trubow ed., (1991)). 

Nevertheless, prisoners' constitutional rights must be 

exercised with due regard for the requirements of prison 

administration. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). 

Courts must give great deference to the decisions of prison 

officials concerning the management of correctional facilities. 

Id. at 85-86. In Turner, the Supreme Court established a rational 

relationship test for assessing the constitutionality of prison 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 5 
regulations and practices. The Court held that "when a prison 

regulation i~pinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the 

regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests." Id. at 89. In applying this test, courts 

should consider the following factors: (1) whether there is a 

valid, rational connection between the prison regulation or 

practice and a legitimate governmental interest; (2) whether the 

regulation or practice allows inmates an alternative means of 

exercising the subject constitutional right; (3) the impact of 

accommodation of the asserted right on guards, other inmates, and 

the allocation of resources generally; and (4) the absence of 

ready alternatives to the regulation or practice. Id. at 89-91. 

The Court has also discussed the factors that must be 

considered in assessing the reasonableness of prisoner searches: 

The test of reasonableness under the Fourth 

Amendment is not capable of precise definition 

or mechanical application. In each case it 

requires a balancing of the need for the 

particular search against the invasion of 

personal rights that the search entails. 

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. 

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). 

We have applied these principles to prisoner searches in a 

number of cases. See, e.g., Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190-97 

(lOth Cir. 1989) (holding that nonconsensual blood test does not 

violate the Fourth Amendment), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059 (1990); 

Levay, 788 F.2d at 1439 (lOth Cir. 1986) ("Since the complaint 

alleges that Mr. Levay was subjected to a body cavity search 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 6 
without any justification whatsoever, it is possible that Mr. 

Levoy can mak.e a rational argument on the law and facts to support 

his Fourth Amendment claim."); Cumbey, 684 F.2d at 714 (lOth Cir. 

1982) (" [T]he plaintiff's statement that the male inmates were 

subject to a 'certain amount of viewing' by female guards does not 

necessarily fall short of a cognizable constitutional claim."). 

In this case, the district court and the magistrate judge 

concluded that a "single or minimal viewing" of a prisoner by 

prison officials of the opposite sex is insufficient as a matter 

of law to constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. Rec. doc. 20, 

at 4. That conclusion is not supported by our prior decisions. 

Although we have stated that the frequency with which prison 

guards watch inmates of the opposite sex undressing, using toilet 

facilities, and showering is an important factor in assessing the 

constitutionality of prison practices, see Cumbey, 684 F.2d at 

714, we have also concluded that a prisoner's right to privacy may 

be violated by a single search, see Levoy, 788 F.2d at 1439. 

Here, Mr. Hayes has alleged in a sworn complaint that he was 

subjected to a body cavity search in the presence of over 100 

people, including female secretaries and case managers from other 

buildings. Rec. doc. 3, at 3. We cannot conclude as a matter of 

law that Mr. Hayes's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. 

simply from the fact that this search occurred only one time. 

To be sure, the defendant prison officials provided an 

explanation of the January 1991 search in the Martinez report. 

The report begins with an unsworn statement by an administrative 

officer for the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. She 

7 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 7 
explains that the January 1991 search was conducted pursuant to a 

Colorado Depa_rtment of Corrections policy 11 to conduct complete, 

thorough searches of all facilities on a regular, unscheduled 

basis. 11 Rec. doc. 12, at 1. The administrative officer further 

states that 11 [d]ue to the enormity of such a search, regular 

facility staff could not handle this operation alone, 11 id., and 

that various Department of Corrections officials from outside the 

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility assisted in the search. As 

to the use of female staff, the administrative officer explains: 

Id. at 2. 

There is no particular DOC policy 

relating to use of female staff during strip 

searches. As a matter of courtesy to the 

inmate population, male staff members are used 

whenever possible. There is no indication any 

female staff members conducted a strip search 

during the dates in question. Although every 

effort was made to reduce the number of female 

staff during the search, females are an 

essential part of our staffing. All posts 

still had to be covered and females did view 

parts of the search while conducting their 

normal duties or observation duties so male 

staff could conduct the searches. There was 

no justifiable reason to totally exclude 

female staff from this required function. 

Additionally, the total absence of female 

staff would have alerted inmates to an 

impending search. 

For several reasons, we conclude that information provided by 

prison officials in the Martinez report does not warrant the grant 

of summary judgment to the defendants. First, the statements of 

the administrative officer are not sworn, and the Martinez report 

does not include affidavits based on personal knowledge of the 

January 1991 searches. See Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 

F.2d 1300, 1306 (5th Cir. 1988) (Unsworn affidavits do not raise 

8 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 8 
factual issues precluding summary judgment.); Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 

F.2d 850, 859_ (7th Cir. 1985) (Unsworn affidavits do not satisfy 

the evidentiary requirements of Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56 (e) .. ) , cert. 

denied, 475 U.S. 1107 (1986). In contrast, Mr. Hayes's sworn 

complaint, which may be treated as an affidavit, see Hall, 937 

F.2d at 1111, alleges that the January 1991 search was conducted 

by female staff members and various "nonessential personnel" and 

was therefore unnecessarily intrusive. Rec. doc. 3, at 4. In 

light of the allegations of Mr. Hayes's verified complaint, the 

unsworn statements in the Martinez are insufficient to establish 

that the January 1991 search was reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e); Mosier, 937 F.2d at 1524-25. 

Second, even if the administrative officer's statements had 

been sworn and therefore constituted proper summary judgment 

evidence, her explanations of the January 1991 search would still 

be insufficient to warrant summary judgment for the defendant 

prison officials. Although the Fourth Amendment does not require 

the complete exclusion of members of the opposite sex from areas 

in which searches are conducted, see Canedy, 16 F.3d at 187; 

Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333-34 (9th Cir. 1988), and 

although the security concerns articulated by prison officials are 

entitled to great deference, see Turner, 482 U.S. at 85, the 

administrative officer's statements in the Martinez report do not 

discuss several important issues regarding the January 1991 

search. 

In particular, the administrative officer's statement that 

"every effort was made to reduce the number of female staff during 

9 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 9 
the search," see Rec. doc. 12, at 2, does not explain which female 

staff member~ were allowed to view the search, what their 

functions were, and why these functions were important to either 

the search itself or to other prison functions. Additionally, the 

Martinez report provides no explanation of the location in which 

the search occurred and the reasons for conducting the search 

there. 

Finally, the prison officials have chosen not to file a brief 

in this appeal. As a result--other than the general statements in 

the Martinez report--the record contains no discussion of the 

prison officials' position on these issues. Given the limited 

information in the record, summary judgment for the defendantappellee prison officials is not warranted. Cf. Lucero v. Gunter, 

17 F.3d 1347, 1350 (lOth Cir. 1994) (remanding prisoner's claim 

that urinalysis testing violated the Fourth Amendment because the 

record was insufficient to determine whether the testing was 

reasonable); Swift v. Lewis, 901 F.2d 730, 731-32 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(concluding that summary judgment was not warranted as to 

reasonableness of prison grooming code because prison officials 

had failed to produce evidence supporting the asserted 

justifications for the code) .4 

4 Mr. Hayes also argues that the district court erred in 

failing to consider his claims that the search violated the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. We find no error in the district 

court's conclusion that these claims should have been litigated in 

the class action suit regarding conditions of confinement. 

In addition, we note that our decision does not preclude the 

defendant prison officials from filing a properly supported motion 

for summary judgment in the district court proceedings regarding 

Mr. Hayes's Fourth Amendment claim. 

10 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 10 
III. CONCLUSION 

Accordi~gly, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal without 

prejudice of Mr. Hayes's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 

We REVERSE the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Mr. 

Hayes's Fourth Amendment claim and REMAND this claim to the 

district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.5 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 

5 Mr. Hayes has also challenged the district court's conclusion 

that the videotaping of the January 1991 search and the alleged 

policy of allowing unlimited, unmonitored viewing of the tapes did 

not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. 

In the Martinez report, the administrative officer of the 

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility stated that the videotape of 

the search had been viewed only by the warden and by the 

administrative staff during the investigation of complaints. Rec. 

doc. 12, at 2. She also noted that "[r]eview of this tape does 

not positively identify any inmate on tape as Willie Hayes, but 

gives an overall picture of what occurred." Id. 

We certainly agree with the prison officials that legitimate 

security interests, as well as other interests, may support the 

videotaping of prisoner searches. See Scott v. Gier, No. 93-

35629, 1994 WL 283621 (9th Cir. June 24, 1994) (affirming grant of 

summary judgment to prison officials who videotaped search) . 

However, because the administrative officer's statement does not 

satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ·and because the 

Martinez report does not contain sworn affidavits from prison 

officials with personal knowledge of either the videotaping of the 

search or the policy of access to the resulting videotape, further 

development of the record is necessary. 

11 

Appellate Case: 93-1181 Document: 01019278993 Date Filed: 11/20/1995 Page: 11