Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04644/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04644-0/pdf.json

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

1

On page one of his form complaint, plaintiff references a lawsuit that he calls the

“Shaffer lawsuit,” concerning strip searches in the county jail. Plaintiff states that the lawsuit

provided that anyone who had been subjected to strip searches was to write a complaint to

Alameda County. Plaintiff may seek any relief to which he is entitled under such lawsuit by

filing such request in the case, or possibly by writing directly to Alameda County, but not by

filing a separate § 1983 action in federal court.

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\shroyer.exh.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY L. SHROYER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY,

Defendant. _____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4644 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was subject to strip searches at the Alameda County

Jail.1 He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

Case 3:07-cv-04644-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/03/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\shroyer.exh.wpd 2

pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[n]o

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other

Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The exhaustion

requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not merely directory. Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct.

983, 988 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet federal

standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even when the

prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to

all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve general conditions or

particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct.

at 992.

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may be

dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of the

complaint and/or any attached exhibits. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th

Cir. 2003). However, a complaint may be dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a

prisoner "conce[des] to nonexhaustion" and "no exception to exhaustion applies." Id. at

1120. Here, plaintiff states in his complaint that he has not exhausted any of the available

administrative grievances because he has “been incarcerated (throughout this whole issue).”

Complaint at 1-2. Exhaustion under the PLRA is not excused based on a plaintiff’s incarcerated

status; indeed, the exhaustion requirement applies to all lawsuits filed by prisoners. See 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). Section 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff complete all of his administrative appeals prior to

raising his claims in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. As it is

clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff had not exhausted any of the administrative

grievances available to him prior to filing the instant complaint, dismissal without prejudice is

Case 3:07-cv-04644-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/03/07 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

2

The Court notes that the right to be free from strip searches is limited. There is no

right to privacy in a prison cell, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984), and a

prisoner may be subjected to strip searches and body cavity searches conducted in a

reasonable manner, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 561 (1979). More recently, the Ninth

Circuit has noted that such a right is very limited, see Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622

(9th Cir. 1997) ("highly questionable" whether inmates have Fourth Amendment right to be

free from routine unclothed searches or viewing of their unclothed bodies by officials of the

opposite sex); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1524-25 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (prior

case law suggests inmates' legitimate expectations of bodily privacy "extremely limited";

privacy interest in freedom from cross-gender clothed body searches not "judicially

recognized"), but it has continued to leave the door open for claims based upon egregious

conduct on the part of prison officials, see Somers, 109 F.3d at 622 n.5 ("purposeful

subjection of prisoners to verbal assaults during strip searches performed by officials of the

other sex serves no administrative purpose and might present a question under the Fourth

Amendment").

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\shroyer.exh.wpd 3

appropriate.2 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after

all available administrative remedies have been completed. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 3 and any other pending motions.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/02/07 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04644-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3