2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-30-2009 

# S amuel C ann v

. George H a ym an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3032

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S amuel C ann v

. Ge org e H a

ym an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 579. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/5791 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3032

___________ S AM UE L CA NN, A ppel l ant v . G E O R G E H A Y M A N , C om m i ssi on er, D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; R O N A L D C A T H E L , A dm i ni s tr at orof N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on; M I C H E L L E R . R I C C I , A s s oci at e A dm i ni s tr at or ; PA M E L A T R E N T , A s s i s t ant

A d m in istra to r; D O N A L D M E E , A ss ista n t A d m in istra to r; S G T . N E W S O M , C u sto d ial O f f icia l o f N JS P ; D A N IE L M A R T A IN , C O R ; O FFICE R O Z V A R T , H / O O ffi cerN ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- 02416) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G arr ettE . B r ow n, J uni or

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t20, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember30, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t S a m u e l C a n n a p p e a ls f ro m a n o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss in g h is c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. C a n n is a n in m a te a t th e N e w Je rse yS tate P riso n in T re n to n . A c c o rd in g to h is compl ai nt , on Sept ember15, 2005, C ann s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en gr i evanc e t o the N ew J er s ey St at e Pr i s on A dm i ni s tr at i on, al l egi ng thatfunds i n hi s i nm at e ac counthad bee n t amper ed w i th bypr i s on offi ci al s . T he gr i evanc e “a ccus ed the off i ci al s of i ndi ffe r ence , ” and s t at ed thatC ann “s houl d nothave t o payforthe bl under s of an i ncompet ents oci al s ervi ces d e p a rt m e n t.” (P l. C o m p . a t 2 .) O n N ovember8, 2005, C ann s etoff a m et al det ect orthr ee c ons ecut i ve t i m es upon r eturn fr om a morni ng pr i s on y ar d exer ci s e. H e w as es cort ed fr om the y ar d, and A ppel l ee Sgt . N ew s om conduct ed a s tr i p s ear ch and a “vi s ual bodycavi tys ear ch. ” ( Pl . C om p. at 3. ) C ann compl i ed w i th both s ear ches , and no contr aband w as found. A ppel l ee O ffi cer M art ai n then gave an addi t i onal or dert o “s quatand cough. ” C ann s t at ed t o M art ai n t hat “ther e w as [no] pol i cythats ay s he has t o do that ; and thatthe or der s w er e compl et el yunr eas onabl e. ” ( Pl . C om p. at4. ) C ann then ques t i oned N ew s om as t o w hetherthat p a rticu lar o rd e r w a s p e rm itt e d b yin stitu tio n a l g u id e lin e s, a n d u lti m a telyre f u se d to c o m p ly.“B odyO r i fi ce Sec ur i tyScanner( “B O SS”) chai r . T he B O SS chai ri s a non- i ntrus i ve, 1 h ig h se n sitiv ityd e tec to r d e sig n e d to d e tec t m e tal o b jec ts h id d e n in b o d yc a v iti e s. It is u se d to sc re e n in m a tes f o r w e a p o n s a n d c o n tra b a n d o b jec ts th a t m ig h t b e h id d e n in a n a l, oral , vag i nal, and nasal cavit i es. Itw i l l no tpick up n on -m et al l i c i t em s such as drugs, ci gar ett es , orm oney . T he B O SS C hai ri s notfool pr oof, buti tenhanc es anyothers ear ch conduct ed on an a r r i vi ng i nm at e. ” D odge v. C ountyof O r ange, 282 F. Supp. 2d 41, 53 (S . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e c h a ra c ter istics o f

a “ d ryc e ll” w e re d e sc rib e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. (D ist. C t. 2 O p . at 3 n . 1 ). 3 B e c a u se o f

C a n n ’s n o n c o m p lian c e w ith th e o rd e r, h e w a s s u b se q u e n tlyp lac e d in the B O SS chai r , s ubj ect ed t o t w o addi t i onal s ear ches byM art ai n, N ew s om and an 1 O f f ice r Jo h n so n , m a d e to su b m it a u rin e sa m p le a d m in iste re d b yA p p e llee P a m e la T re n t, and i n the end w as pl aced in a “drycel l ” atthe instruct i on of T rent . N on e of these 2 me a s u r e s r e s u l t e d i n th e d i s c o v e r yo f c o n tr a b a n d . Ho we v e r , Ca n n wa s c h a r g e d wi th t wo di s ci pl i naryi nfr act i ons : one bas ed on hi s r efus al t o s ubm i tt o a s ear ch and the otherbas ed o n h is r ef

u sal t o o b eythe “ sq u at an d co u g h ” a n d o rde r. (D ist . C t. O p . at 3.) C ann s pents i x day s i n t he drycel l , and then w as m oved t o a di ffe r entdet ent i on uni tfors ever al day s befor e the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng w as t o comm ence . D ur i ng thatt i m e, he “r ece i ved a c opyof the gr i evanc e form thathe s ubm i t t ed bac k i n Sept emberof 2005; alth o u g h there w as n o d o cu m en ted re so luti o n o n this rem ed yfo rm , [T ren t’ s] si g n ature w as on the gr i evanc e. ” ( Pl . C om p. at6. ) A ft erfourcont i nuance s , a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng w as hel d befor e A ppel l ee O ffi cerO zvart . C ann w as adj udi cat ed gui l tyon the cha r ge of r efus i ng the or dert o s quatand cough; the otherchar ge w as dr opped. O zvarti m pos ed a4

fiftee n -da yd eten ti o n an d a n inety -da yad m inistrati v e se g reg ati o n . (D ist . C t. O p . at 3.) A ft erhi s admi ni s tr at i ve appe al of O zvart ’ s deci s i on w as uns ucce s s ful , C ann fi l ed a compl ai nti n s t at e courtal l egi ng depr i vat i ons of hi s ci vi l r i ght s i n r el at i on t o hi s tr eatm ent a f ter se tti n g o f

f th e m e tal d e tec to r. T h e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f N e w Je rse y , A p p e llate D i vi s i on deni ed r el i ef a nd the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tdeni ed ce r t i fi cat i on. See C ann v. D ep’ tof C orr . , 2006 W L 2714604 ( N . J . Super . A pp. D i v. Sep. 25, 2006) , aff’ d, 1 8 9 N . J. 4 2 8 (20 0 7 ). C ann then fi l ed thi s pr o s e ac t i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ct o f N e w Je rse ya g a in st s e v e ra l p riso n o f f icia ls (“ A p p e llee s” ), alle g in g v io latio n s o f h is ci vi l r i ght s under42 U . S. C . § 1983. Speci fi cal l y , C ann al l eged Fi r s tA m endment r et al i at i on, Four th A m endmentunr eas onabl e s ear ch, E i ghth A m endmentcruel and u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t, a n d F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t d u e p ro c e s s /e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la im s . T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d C a n n ’s c o m p lain t w ith p re ju d ice f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) and 1 9 1 5 A (b )( 1 ). C a n n a p p e a le d . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W hen r evi ew i ng a compl ai ntdi s m i s s ed u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), w e a p p lyth e sa m e sta n d a rd p ro v id e d f o r in F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il5

P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )( 6 ). S e e T o u rs c h e r v . M c C u llo u g h , 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h u s, w e “ a c c e p t as tru e th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t an d a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s th a t c a n b e d ra w n th e re f ro m .” A lla h , 2 2 9 F .3 d a t 2 2 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). M oreove r, w e l i beral l ycon strue the p l eadings of p ro se l i t i gan t s. S ee E ri ckson v. P ardus, 5 5 1 U .S . 8 9 (2 0 0 7 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). T o avoi d di s m i s s al , “a c om pl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m att er , acc ept ed a s true , t o ‘ s t a t e a c l a i m t o r e l i e f tha ti s pl a us i bl e on i t s fa c e . ’ ” A s hc r of tv. I qb a l , 12 9 S. C t. 19 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); se e a lso U n ited S tate s D e p ’t o f T ra n sp ., e x re l. A rn o ld v . C M C E n g ’g , 5 6 4 F .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “A c laim h a s f a c ial p lau sib ili ty w h e n th e p lain tiff

p lea d s f a c tu a l co n ten t th a t allo w s th e c o u rt to d ra w th e re a so n a b le i nfer ence thatthe def

endanti s l i abl e forthe mi s conductal l eged. ” I qbal , 129 S. C t . at 1949. Fur therm or e, “[i ] n t he eve nta compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m , unl es s amendm ent w oul d be fut i l e, the D i s tr i ctC our tm us tgi ve a pl ai nt i ff the opportuni tyt o amend her com plai nt. ” P hil l i ps v. C ou ntyof A l l egh eny , 51 5 F . 3d 22 4, 22 8 (3d C i r. 20 08 ); see al so A ls to n v . P a rk e r, 3 6 3 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). III . A s a p reli m inarym att er, w e se e n o ind icati o n in the rec o rd th at th e D istri ct C o u rt gave Cann an oppor tuni tyt o amend hi s compl ai ntaft eri t s i ni t i al s cr eeni ng. N ordoes t he D is tr ic t C o u rt s p e a k to th e in e q u ity o r f u tilit yo f s u c h a n a m e n d m e n t in its o p in io n . N o n e th e les s, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t C a n n ’s c o m p lain t f a ils to sta te a v iab leForthes e s ame r eas ons , w e fi nd thatamendm entw oul d have be en fut i l e. 3 6 cl ai m underthe Fi r s t , Four th, E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s , fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons gi ven i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough opi ni on. 3 I n s ho r t , the c l a i ms i n Can n’ s c ompl a i ntl a c k f a c i a l pl a us i bi l i ty , s e e I qb a l , 12 9 S. C t. at 19 4 9 , b ec au se th e c o m p lai n ed -of ac ti o n s b ythe p ri so n o ff ici als w ere n o t i m p rop er, l etal one uncons t i tut i onal , gi ven C ann’ s “tr i pl e tr i gger i ng” of the met al det ect ori n the y ar d and hi s s ubs equentr efus al t o compl yw i th M art ai n’ s or dert o s quatand cough. T he re sp o n siv e a c tio n s ta k e b yp riso n o f f icia ls w e re ra tio n a llyre late d to leg iti m a te p e n o lo g ica l in ter e sts a n d g o a ls. A n d d e sp ite h is a ttem p ts to sh if t th e f o c u s f ro m h is con du ctt o p rovi si on s of t he N ew Jer seyA dm i nis trat i ve C od e, C ann nev ertheles s c o n c e d e s th a t h e d id n o t co m p lyw ith M a rta in ’s o rd e r. T h e re a so n in g o f th e A p p e llate D i vis i on , i n rej ect i ng on e of C ann ’s st at e l aw cl ai m s, provides a hel pfu l analog fo r these po i nts : It is u n d isp u ted th a t th e in m a te d id n o t d o w h a t h e w a s to ld to

d o : sq u a t an d c o u g h . C e rta in ly , the g u a rd s w e re e n tirely ju stif ied in g iv in g su c h a n o rd e r w h e n th e strip se a rc h f a iled to pr oduce t he obj ectthattr i gger ed the met al det ect or ; notonl yfor th e ir sa f e ty , b u t als o th a t o f

o th e r in m a tes . T h e c o m m a n d to s quatand cough w as cert ainly le s s i nvas i ve than a di gi t al or i n s tru me n t e d i n s p e c t i o n o f h i s r e c tu m. F u r th e r mo r e , th e DOC had l i t t l e choi ce but t o put the i nm at e i n a dry cel l beca us e of the ri s k t o t h e g u a rd s a n d o th e r i n m a te s f ro m a s e c re te d w e a p o n . C a n n , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 1 4 6 0 4 , a t * 2 .7

C ann mai nt ai ns on appea l , as he di d i n the compl ai nt , thatthe met al det ect orw as s etoff be caus e i tw as m al funct i oni ng. E ven i f thatw er e the ca s e, thi s fac tdoes not v ali d ate h is no n co m p li an ce w ith M artain’s o rde r t o sq u at an d co u g h . W e e m p h asize h ere the Supr eme C our t ’ s di ct at e that“pr i s oner s have no l egi t i m at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy . ” H u d so n v . P alm er, 46 8 U . S . 5 1 7 , 5 3 0 (19 8 4 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g C an n ’s c o mp l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m.