Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS ASHA XYAH GREENE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. JONES, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00677 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California State Prison, has filed a pro se complaint for

damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth,

and Eighth Amendment rights in connection with strip searches conducted by Defendants

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”). 

DISCUSSION

A. 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 liberally construed,

however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 18 Filed 02/12/09 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff, a member of the Nation of Islam, contends that the strip search practice at

CCI is needlessly intrusive of his privacy rights. According to Plaintiff, before going to the

yard or library, CCI instructs inmates to line up at tables and disrobe while correctional

officers observe and search their clothes. The complaint alleges that female officers may be

present during these searches, and that they are “eyeballing” the men while “they pretend to

be searching clothes.” Plaintiff also alleges that he heard a female officer make a comment

about his calves after a search was done. 

Generally, strip searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of prisoners. 

See Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332-33. Routine visual body cavity searches do

not violate prisoners’ constitutional rights. Id. at 332. Strip searches that are “excessive,

vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological interest,” however, may be

unconstitutional. Id. The Ninth Circuit has never held that a prison guard of the opposite sex

cannot conduct visual body cavity searches. See Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 620 (9th

Cir. 1997). In Somers, the court noted that its “prior case law suggests that prisoners’

legitimate expectations of bodily privacy from persons of the opposite sex are extremely

limited.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts suggesting that the searches at CCI are

unreasonable. Weighing the “significant and legitimate security interests of the institution

against the privacy interests of the inmates,” the Court concludes Plaintiff has not stated a

claim for a violation of his constitutional rights. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560

(1979). As for the involvement of female officers, Plaintiff has not alleged that they were

actually conducting searches of the inmates, but only that women were sometimes present to

search the clothes. This limited involvement of female officers is not enough to constitute a

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 18 Filed 02/12/09 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2008\677\Order of dismissal.wpd 3

breach of Plaintiff’s rights. The cases cited by Plaintiff are inapposite and do not support a

contrary conclusion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all pending

motions as moot and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2009 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 18 Filed 02/12/09 Page 3 of 3