Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04082/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

SALIM D. AHMED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF

CHARLES PLUMMER, SANTA RITA

JAIL and ALAMEDA DEPUTY

CABRERA, 

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-4082 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Alameda County Jail in Dublin, California,

has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging that he was

strip searched at the jail on April 6, 2009. Plaintiff has also filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis which is GRANTED in a separate order filed simultaneously. 

This Court now reviews the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses the

complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

Case 3:09-cv-04082-JSW Document 4 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 5
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

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Here, Plaintiff provides no details of the circumstances surrounding his strip

search other than that it occurred on April 6, 2009. He does not identify who conducted

the search, what his legal status was at the time it occurred or how any of the named

parties is responsible for a constitutional injury. 

Incarcerated prisoners retain a limited right to bodily privacy. See Michenfelder v.

Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir. 1988). Shielding one's unclothed figure from the

view of strangers, particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled by elementary

self-respect and personal dignity. See Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir.

1985). To analyze a claim alleging a violation of this privacy right, the court must

determine whether the prison regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests. See Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 333-34 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89

(1987)). 

Prisoners and pretrial detainees in institutional settings may be subjected to strip

searches and body cavity searches if they are conducted in a reasonable manner. See Bell

v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 561 (1979). The Fourth Amendment right to be secure against

unreasonable searches extends to incarcerated prisoners, although the reasonableness of a

particular search must be determined by reference to the prison context. See

Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 332. The court should "consider the reasonableness of [the

search] to help [the court] determine if it was reasonably related to legitimate penological

Case 3:09-cv-04082-JSW Document 4 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 5
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

interests." Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1997). Factors to

consider in determining the reasonableness of a search include the scope of the particular

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

place at which it is conducted. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 559; Thompson, 111 F.3d at 700

(visual strip searches and urine tests of large group of prisoners to search for drugs were

reasonably related to the prison officials' legitimate penological interest in keeping drugs

out of prison).

In order to state a claim for relief, Plaintiff must provide more details of the search

and must identify how each named Defendant is responsible. A complaint that fails to

state the specific acts of the defendant which violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet

the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v.

United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). District courts must afford pro

se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their

complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff must specifically identify what each named Defendant did or did not do in order

to state a claim against them. As such, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend to allege

specifics. Plaintiff must complete the Court’s complaint form, which will be provided to

him with this order. 

 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person or

entity for the claimed violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual

defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

Case 3:09-cv-04082-JSW Document 4 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 5
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

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442

(9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's failure to intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation

may be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff

must instead "set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of

protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

Plaintiff has named the Sheriff as a Defendant. With regard to a supervisory

employee, Plaintiff should be mindful that a supervisor may be liable under § 1983 only

upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the

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

1991) (en banc). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for constitutional

violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations,

or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff also names Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail as a defendant in this

action. With regard to the named municipal Defendant, Plaintiff has also failed to state a

claim. Local governments are "persons" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v. Dep't of Social

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, a city or county may not be held vicariously

liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of respondeat

superior, see Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436

U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir. 1995). To impose

municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must

show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was 

deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving

Case 3:09-cv-04082-JSW Document 4 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 5
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

force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of 

Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). In this case, Plaintiff has not properly

alleged liability on the part of the municipal Defendant. Plaintiff will be provided with

thirty days in which to amend to correct the deficiencies in his complaint. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as indicated

above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

this order in which he asserts factual allegations against all Defendants named therein.

The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in dismissal of the complaint. The Clerk

shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Court’s complaint form along with this order. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/09/10 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04082-JSW Document 4 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 5