Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20431 Su m m ar y Cal endar

D A L E A L L E N H A M E R , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. W AR DE N J AMES J ONE S ; R OB ER T T RE ON, Di r e c t o r ; DO OS W AL DR ON, As s i s t a n tDi r e c t o r ; DEBORAH HARDM AN, S e g r e g a t i o n Of f i c e r ; F ERNATE R S M I TH, P r o p e r t yOf f i c e r ; S USAN RI VAS , Gr i e v a n c e Of f i c e r ; OFF I CER C O O K ; S E C O N D O F F IC E R , N a m e U n k n o w n , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 2417

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D al e Al l e n H am e r ( “ H am e r ” ) , Te xa s pr i s o ne r#2 75 72 73 , a ppe al s t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a lo f h i s p r o s e , i n f

orm a p auperi s 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983
c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g i n v a s i o n o f h i s p r i v a c y r i g h t s , e x c e s s i v e u s e o f f o r c e , a nd d en i a lof d u e p roce ss i n viol a ti on of th e F ou rth , E i gh th , an d F ou rteen th United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

Th e re cordi s uncl ear a s to wh eth erHa mer wa s eversubj ecte d toastrip se arch

. Mo st 1 of th e record sugge sts Hamerw as n ev ersearche d byth e fe male gu ards. Still, o ne inmate affidavi t , th e paragraphof the more definite statement a ddressin g Director Treon , an d th e appellatebriefingall state thatHamer was strip s earched byfemale gu ards. Forexample, the affid avit from afellow inmatespecificallystat es: “Iwitn essed offender Hammer [sic] b ein g forced to strip nude in frontof a fe male officer in the mainh allway, without th e aid of cover from h er eye s.” Liberally construin g the plea dings and resolving all di sputes in Hamer’s favor, th en , wemu sta ssu meHa mer wa s inf actse arc h edb yth e fe malegu ard s. SeeC ol li ns v. Morgan Stanley Dean W itter , 22 4 F .3d 4 96, 498(5th Cir. 2 000)

2 A m en dm en t s t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates C on st i t u t i on , res pectivel y. Th e di st ri ctcourt di sm i ssed H am er’ s c ase u n der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 19 15A f or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m up on whi c h r e l i e f

c a n b e g r a nt e d

. W e AFFI RM I N PART a ndREVE RSE I N PART. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND H am eri s pre se nt l y i ncarce rat ed i n t he C T T er r el lU ni tof t he Texas D e pa r t m e nto f

Cr i m i nalJ us t i c e Cor r e c t i o nalIn st i t ut i o ns D i vi s i o n, w he r e he
r e m ai ns i n c us t o dy

. H i s c o m pl ai nti n t he i ns t ants ui ta r i s e s f r o m a l l e ga t i o ns reg a rd in g a cross-sex stri p sea rch , ex cess i ve u se o f force, an d the ftof p rop erty d u ri n g h i s con fi n em en t. D u r in ga u n it -w id e lo c k d o w n o n M a y8 , 2 0 0 8 , a llo f t h e i n m a t e s in H a m e r ’s d orm i tory w ere ord ere d to p a ck th eir p rop erty a n d rep ort to th e T erre ll U n it g y mn a s i u m f

o ra r o u t i n e s e mi

- a n n u a ls h a k e d o w n . Wh e n h e a r r i v e d a tt h e g y m, H am er w as ord ered t o su bm i tto a str i p search by t w o fem al e of f i cers i n vi ol ati on o f pr i s o n po l i c y, w hi c h pr e c l ude s i nm at e search es b y o f f i c e r s o f a di f fe r e nt gender

. D uri ng orafter the s t r i p s ear c h, H am erpr ot es t ed, and R egi onal 1 D i rect or R obertT reon or dered hi m t o be pl aced i n h an dcu f fs. H e w as esc ort ed b ytw o o ffic e r s to th e in fir m a r y fo r a p r e -h e a r in gd e te n tio n p h y s ic a l in pr e pa r at i o n fordi s c i pl i nar y pr o c e e di ngs . H am e rr e po r t s t hat , w hi l e e s c o r t i ng hi m t o t he i nf

i r m ar y, O f

f i c e rRanda l lCoo k was “ ab us i ve ” to w ar ds hi m a nd
s que e z e d hi s ar m t o o t i ght l y. H am e rco nt e nds t hat , w he n he c o m pl ai ne d a bo ut O f f i cer C ook’ s c on du ct , O f f i cer C ook a t t acked hi m . H am er c l ai m s t h at O f f i cer C ook and an ot h er “ Joh n D oe O f f i cer, ” i den t i f

i ed as O f

f i cer D erek D en n i s, used Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

This court h as a dopted the procedure u sed in Martinez v. Aaron , 57 0 F .2d 3 17 (10th 2 Cir. 1 978), as a tool by which an administrative r ec or di s c onstructed to a ssist inassessing pris onerliti gationun der 2 8U.S .C . § 1 9 1 5
. See Norton v. Dimazana , 12 2 F .3d 2 86, 292 -93 (5th Cir. 1 997). The resulting administrative record is co mmonlyreferred to a s a “Martinez re port .” 3 ex cess i ve f

orce to sl a m H a m er a ga i n st th e w a l lw h i l e h oldin g h i m b y th e th roa t. T h e of f i c e r s t he n f

o r c e d hi m o nt o t he f l o o r . H am e rw as s ubs e que nt l y c har ged
w ith a d is c ip lin a r yv io la tio n fo rcr e a tin g a d is tu r b a n c e th a t d is r u p te d u n it
o p e r a tio n s . A s a r es ul tof

t hi s al l ege d as sa ul t by O f f i c er s C oo k and D enni s, H am erw as i nj u red an d taken t o t h e hosp i t al

. H am er c l ai m s t h at he suff ered h ead an d n eck i nj u ri es. H am er s t ates i n hi s pl ead i n gs t h at he st i l lsuf fers f rom di zzi n ess, b lu r r e d v is io n , b la c k o u ts , a n d p a in s te m m in gfr o m th e M a y8 , 2 0 0 8 in c id e n t. H am er w as even t u ally con vi ct ed of t h e di sci pl i n ary cha rges t h at w ere l odg ed ag ai n sthi m as a res u l tof th e M ay 8, 200 8 dis t u rban ce. H am er al so al l e ge s t hat , w hi l e he w as i n s e gr e ga t e d c o nf i ne m e nt , c e r t ai n i t e m s ( a fan and a pai rof

headphones ) w er e s t ol en f r om hi s per so nalpr ope r t y. H am er s u ed O f

f i cer C ook an d O f

f i cer D en n i s f

o r u sing excessive f orce a ga i n st h i m . H a m er su ed S eg reg a ti on O ff i cer D eb ora h H a rd m a n , P r o p e rty O ffic e rF e r n a te rS m ith , a n d G r ie v a n c e O ffic e rS u s a n R iv a s fo rs te a lin gh is persona lproperty orcoveri n g u p the “ t h ef t ” t h a t p ro perty. H am er al so s u ed severalsup ervi sory of f i ci al s, i n cl u di n g T errel lU n i tW arden Jam es Jones, R egi on alD i rect or R obertT reon, an d A ssi st an tR egi on alD i rect or D oos W al dron in co n n e c tio n w ith th e cr o s s -s e x s tr ip s e a r c h , u s e o f fo r c e , a n d th e th e ft o f h is p r o p e r ty
. H a m e rs o u g h t c o m p e n s a to r ya n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s o u g h t a n d r e c e iv e d a m o r e d e fin ite s ta te m e n t o f c la im f r om H am erand a Mart i n ezreport f rom t h e T exas A t t orney G en eralt o assi st 2 i n t h e court ’ s prel i m i n ary P ri son L i t i gati on R ef orm A ctrevi ew of

H am er’ s c ase. A ft e rr e c e iv in gb o t h s u p p le m e n t s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r td is m is s e d H a m e r ’s Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

4 com p l a i n tw i t h prej udi c e f orfai l ure t o s t at e ac l ai m upon w hi c h re l i ef m ay be gr ant e d p ur s uantt o 2 8 U

. S. C. § 1 91 5A. H am e rt i m e l y ap pe al e d. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h is ca se is g o v e rn e d b y th e P riso n L iti g a tion R e for m A ct (t h e “P L R A”). U n d e rth e P L R A , a p r is o n e r ’ s civ il rig h ts c o m p la in t sh o u ld b e d is m is s e d if it is f r i vo l o us , m al i c i o us , o rfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upo n w hi c h r e l i e f m ayb e g r ant e d. 28 U

. S. C

. § 1915A (b) ( 1)

. W e re vi ew de novo a di st r i c tc our t ’ s § 1 915Adi sm i ss al fo rfa ilu r e to s ta te a cla im

. S ee R u iz v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 160 F

. 3d 273 , 275 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). T o avoi d d i sm i ssalf or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m , a pl ai n t i f f ’ s c om pl ai n tm u st p le a d e n o u g h fa c ts to “s ta te a cla im to re lie f th a t is p la u s ib le o n its fa c e .” Ash c r of t v. I qb al , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng B e l lAt l

. Cor p. v. Tw o m b ly , 5 50 U

. S. 5 44 , 5 70 ( 20 07 ) )

. The fac t uala l l e ga t i o ns m us t“ r ai s e a r i ght to reli ef a b ov e t h e spe cu l a tive l ev el

. . . . ” Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S

. at 555
. W h i l e pro se c om pl ai nt s ar e he l d t o l es s st r i ng en ts t andards t han co m pl ai nt s dra f t ed by l aw yer s , “ c o nc l us o r ya l l e g a t i o ns o rl e g a lc o nc l us i o ns m a s q ue r a d i nga s fa c t ual
con cl u sion s w i l ln ot su ff i ce to p r e v e n t a m oti on to dism i ss. ” T aylorv. B ooks A Mi l l i on , I

n c. , 2 9 6 F .3d 3 7 6 , 3 7 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tion om itted ).

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON H a m e re s s e n tia llya lle g e s th a t t h e d is tr i c t c o u r t m a d e th r e e e r r o r s in d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 3 s u it u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A

. F i r s t , h e c l a i ms t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti n ap propri atel y determ i n ed both that h i s al l eged i nj u ri es
w ere d e m in im is an d tha t he fa i l ed to all eg e m a li ci ou s or sa d i sti c con d u ct. Se c o nd, he c l ai m s t hathe w as e nt i t l e d t o a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng be c aus e t he di st ri ctcourteng aged i n cr edi bi l i t y determ i n ati on s. T h ir d , h e im p lic itly cha l l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on t h at h e w as n ot sub j ect ed t o a cros s- sex Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

Ha mer make s virtu allyno argu me nt on app eal re gardin g th e di smi ssal of his“th ef

t 3 of property” cl aims. Infact, Hamer onlyreferenc es his th eft clai m tan ge ntiallywhenh e notes that h e included a clai m for “theft and conf is c at io n of per sonal property” in his complaint. Acc or din gly , anyapp eal a s to th at cl aimh a s b ee nwaived

. Yohey v. Collins , 98 5 F .2d 2 22, 2 2 4 -2 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3). 5 st ri p search vi ol ati n g h i s Fou rt h A m en dm en t ri gh t s. W e add ress each cl ai m of 3
e r r o ri n t ur n. A

. Ex ce ss ive U

se of F o rc e A n a lys is O n ap p ea l , H a m er a rg u es th e d i stri ct cou rt er r e d i n tw o res p ects w i th
r e ga r d t o H am e r ’ s e xc e s s i ve us e of fo r c e cl ai m . Fi r s t , H am e rc o nt e nds t hatt he di st r i c tc our ti m per m i ss ibl y r equi r ed hi m t o sho w “ se r i ous orper m anenti nj ury” to state a claim u n d er th e E i gh th A m en d m en t. S eco n d , H a m er im p l i ci tl y a sse rts t hatt he di st r i c tcour ter r ed w hen i tc onc l uded t hatH am erfai l ed t o a l l ege t hat O ffic e r s C o o k a n d D e n n is ac t ed “ m al i c i ous l y and s adi st i c al l y” as re qui r ed by E a so n v. Ho lt , 73 F. 3d 600, 601- 602 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) (c i t i ng H uds o n v . McMi l l i an , 5 0 3 U .S

. 1 , 7 (19 9 2 )). H am er’ s f

i rstargu m en ti s not en t i rel y w i t h ou tm eri t
. W h i l e the d i st ri ct court di d n otdem an d a sh ow i n g of “ seri ou s orperm an e n t i nj u ry” as H am er
s u g g e s ts , its a n a ly s is o f H a m e r ’ s a s s e r te d h a r m s a p p e a r s to in a p p r o p r ia te lyre ly
u pon t h e Mart i n ezr e po r tt o r e s o l ve c e r t ai n c o nt r ad i c t i o ns i n the r e c o r d a bo ut t he ful le x t e n to f

Ha m e r ’ s i nj u r i e s . Ha m e rc o n t e n d s i n h i s p l e a d i n g s t h a the
s uf fered i nj ur i e s t o hi s ne c k, he ad , a nd e arpr o duc i ng l i nge r i ng e f fe c t s i n t he f orm of di zzi n ess, bl u rred vi si on , bl ackou t s, an d p ai n . Th e Mart i n ez report pr e s e n t s com pe l l i ng e vi de nc e t hatH am e rm e r e l y s uf fe r e d a b r ui s e d k ne e a nd
e lb o w a s w e lla s s m a llc u to n th e b a c k o f h is h e a d

. T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s concl u si on s as t o t h e ext en tof H am er’ s i nj u ri es app ear t o adop tt h e i n f orm ati on i n t h e Mart i n ezr e po r t , s pe c i f i c al l y vi de o e vi de nc e g at he r e d a tt he t i m e o f t he in c id e n t, r a th e r th a n s im p ly a c c e p tin g H a m e r ’ s a lle g a tio n s . W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly not ed t hata Mart i n ez rep ort m a y n ot b e use d to reso l ve m a terialdisp u ted fa cts Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

6 w h e n t h e r e p o r t is in c o n flic t w ith th e p le a d in g s o ra ffid a v its

. S ee Hend ri ckson
v . D a v is , 17 2 F. App’ x 48 , 48 ( 5t h Ci r . 200 6) ( unpub l i s he d) ( c i t i ngSh abazzv. Ask i ns , 9 8 0 F .2d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 4 -3 5 (10 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 )). N on et h el ess, w e need not
r e a c h th is is s u e . E v e n if th e d is t r ic tc o u r tim p r o p e r ly c h a r a c t e r iz e d H a m e r ’s i nj ur i e s , i t s ul t i m at e r ul i ng as s um e d i n argu end o t h at any i njuri es H am er sustai n ed m ett h e E i gh t h A m en dm en trequi rem en t s. I nst ead, t he di st r i c tc our tul t i m at el y r ul ed o n ot hergr ounds. Spec i f i c al l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf

o und t hatH am e r ’ s a l l e ga t i o ns di d no ts at i s f y t he H udson v

. McMi l l i an , 5 03 U

. S. 1 ( 19 92 ) , t e s tf o re xc e s s i ve us e o f

fo r c e cl ai m s . I n H u d son , t he Supr e m e Cour the l d t hat“ w he ne ve rpr i s o n o f f i c i al s s t anda c c us e d o f us i ng ex cess i ve ph ys i ca lf

orce i n viol a ti on of th e C ru el an d U n u su a lP u n i sh m en ts C l a u se, th e cor e j u d i ci a li n q u i ryi s . . . w h eth er force w a s ap p l i ed i n a g oo d -fa i th ef f ortt o m ai n t ai n or rest ore di sci pl i n e, or m al i ci ou sl y an d sad i st i cal l y t o cause h a rm . ” I

d. a t 7 ; seealso E ason , 73 F

. 3d a t602

- 603 ( st ati n g t h at a pl ai n t i f f m u st
es t abl i sh t hatf

or c e w as m al i c i ous l y and s adi st i c al l y appl i ed i n or dert o s urvive di s m i ssalforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m )

. H e r e , H am e rha s no tm e thi s b ur de n. H am e ra dm i t s t hathe c o m pl ai ne d t o t he o f f i c e r s w hi l e be i ng e s c o r t e d d o w n t he pr i s o n ha l l w aya nd t hathi s c o m pl ai nt s t r i gg e r e d t he us e o f f o r c e . M o r e o ve r , he
con ced es h e rec eived a m i n or d i scipli n a ryi n fracti on ci tati on for h i s con d u ct. H am e rdo e s no ta l l e ge t hatt he o f f i c e r s di d m o r e t han w as ne c e s s ar y t o b ri ng h i m t o t h e f

l oor, i

. e. , h e m ak es n o ef f ort t o pl ead fact s s h ow i n g t h at t h e gu ards’
con d u ct w a s u n n ece ssa ry“t o m a i n tain or resto re d i scipli n e.” Fi nal l y, hi s c l ai m e d i nj ur i e s , w hi l e ar gua bl y m o r e t han d e m in im is , do n ot dem on st rat e i nj u rie s t h at are t h e produ ctof t h e sor tof

un n ecess ary f

orce des c r ibed b y H u d son . I n short , as noted by the di st ri ct co u rt, H am er does not di sput e t hathe c r eat ed a di st urbanc e a nd t hatt he f or c e us ed ag ai nsthi m w as i n re s po ns e t o t hatdi s t ur ba nc e . H am e r ’ s o w n pl e ad i ngs de m o ns t r at e t hatt he f o r c e us e d a ga i ns thi m w as e m pl o ye d s o l e l y f o rt he pur po s e o f

m ai nt ai ni ng Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

7 d i s c i p l i n e a n d n o tw i t h a g o a lo f i mp e r mi s s ib l ys u b j e c t i n gh i m t o h a r m. A ccord i n gly, h e h a s n ot a l l eg ed a co gn i za b l e inju ryu n d er th e E i gh th A m en d m en t. B. Evi de nt i ar

y He ar i ng H am er ’ s se c ond c l ai m ed e r r ori s m er i t l es s. H am erc l a i m s he “ w as d e p r iv e d o f a h e a r in ga t w h ic h to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e in s u p p o r t o f h is a lle g a tio n s .” H am er w as n oten t i t l ed t o a n y such hea ri n g. Fir st , H am er’ s c i t ati on t o T aylor
v. G i bson , 5 29 F. 2d7 09 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 6) , i s i nap po s i t e . I n T aylor , w e he l d t hatan ev i d en ti a ryh ea ri n g is req u i red w h ere the distri ct cou rt m a k es cre d ib i l i ty d e te r m in a tio n s in th e p r o c e s s o f e n te r in ga 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 Ad is m is s a l. I d. at 7 1 6
. Bu tt h e di s t r i c tc o u r ti n t h e i n s t a n tc a s e m a d e no s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n . As di s c us s e d a bo ve , t he di s t r i c t c o ur tc o r r e c t l y c o nc l ude d t hatH am e r ’ s a l l e ga t i o ns fai l e d t o m ak e o uta n e xc e s si ve u se o f f o r c e c l ai m b e c aus e he pr e s e nt e d no evi denc e o ras se r t i ons s ugges t i ng t he of f i c er s ac t ed m al i c i ous l y and sadi st i c al l y. W i t h res pect t o H am er’ s t h ef tof property c l ai m s, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed on th e g rou n d s th a t H a m er w a s req u i red to reso rt to th e a va i l a b l e sta te l a w po stde pr i va t i o n r e m e di e s . N e i t h e rd e t e r m i nat i o n r e qui r e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o m ak e a c r e dibi l i t y de t e r m i nat i o n, a nd, he nc e , no e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng w as w ar r ant e d. A l tern a tive l y, H a m er’ s ap p ea l , w h en lib era l l y con stru ed , co u l d b e see n to al l ege er r ori n th e d i st r i c tc our t ’ s fai l ure t o c onducta S pears h e a r in g . S ee S pears v. McCot t er , 7 66 F. 2d 17 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 85 ) ( e s t ab l i s hi ng c o ur t r o o m he ar i ng a s s u b stitu te form o tion fo r m o re d e fin ite sta te m e n t in p ro s e ca se s), over rule d
o n o t he rg r o unds , Ne i tz k ev . Wi l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U .S

. 3 1 9 (19 8 9 ). T h i s argum en tal so fa i l s . Ad i s t r i c tc o u r tfa c e d wi t h a n i n a d e q u a t e p r o s e p r i s o n e rp l e a d i n gh a s t wo c hoi c es : 1) c onducta S pears hear i ng; or2) r e que s ta m o r e de f i ni t e s t at e m e nt from the pr i son er -p la in tiff by w a y o f a qu estion n a i re d esign ed to “b ri n g in to focu s th e factu a lan d l eg a lba ses of [t h e] prison ers’cl a i m s. ” E ason v. T h ale r , 14 F

. 3 d 8 , 9 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 4 ) (qu ota ti on om i tted). W h i l e ith a s bo th op ti on s at i ts Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

8 di s po s al , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti s no tr e qui r e d t o c o nduc ta he ar i ng ando r de rt he
c o m p le tio n o f a q u e s tio n n a ir e . Id

. at 9 n . 5. In t h e inst an tcase, the di st ri ctcourt
c r e at e d a nd H am e rc o m pl e t e d a q ue st i o nnai r e c o ns i s t i ng o f t hi r t y- e i ght suppl em ent alques t i ons . Acc or di ngl y, H a m er w as notent i t l ed t o a S pears hear i ng. C

. R igh tt o B od i l

y Pri vacy Th r oughoutt he pl eadi ngs and on appeal , H am erc om pl ai ns t hathe w as
s ubj e c t e d t o a c r o s s - s e x s t r i p s e ar c h i n vi o l at i o n of hi s Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntr i ght t o bodil y pri vacy. Th e recor d on t h i s poi n ti s far f rom cl ear. A t s o m e p o in ts in t he r ec or d, H am erc l ear l y c ont ends he w as s t r i p s ear c hed and t hen t aken aw ay i n hand c uf

fs . At o t he r s , he s e e m s t o s t a t e he p r o t e s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a ndw as tak en a w a y be fore th e st ri p sea rch be ga n . W e m u st resolve this l a ck of cl a ri ty in th e re c o r d in fa v o rH a m e ra n d h is cla im

. Se eCol l i ns v . Mo rga n St anley D e an Wi t t er , 2 24 F. 3d4 96 , 4 98 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0)

. Ac c o r di ngl y, w e a s s um e w i t ho ut d e c id in gth a t H a m e rw a s s tr ip s e a r c h e d

. Ast ri p search of

a m al e pr iso n e r b y a f em al e gu ard i n t h e absen ce of
e x i g e n tc i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t s a c o l o r a b le F o u r th A m e n d m e n t c la im

. Se eMoore v . Ca rw ell , 1 68 F. 3d2 34 , 23 5- 37 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 99 ) (r e c o gni z i ng t hata no n- e xi ge nt st ri p an d cavi t y search of m al e p ri soner by a fem al e gu ard, coul d gi ve ri se t o a F o u r th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n ). I f D i r e c t o rT r e o n was , a s H am e ra l l e ge d, pe r s o nal l y i nvo l ve d i n t he c r o s s - s e x s e ar c h and i f t he se ar c h o c c ur r e d un de rno nexi gen tci rcum st an ces as H am er al l eged , t h en h i s cl ai m m ay ri se t o t h e l evelof
a c ons t i t ut i onalvi ol at i on. A c c or di ngl y, w e r eve r se t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss al
w ith re s p e c t t o H a m e r ’ s F o u r th A m e n d m e n t c la im a g a in s t D ir e c to rT r e o n . I V . C ONC L US I ON W i th resp ect to h is e xc ess i ve u se o f force clai m s, H a m er h a s fa i l ed to de m o ns t r at e t hatt he i nj ur i e s he e ndur e d wer e i n f l i c t e d m al i c i o us l y and
sa di st i c al l y s o a s t o v i ol at e hi s r i ght s und ert he E i ght h A m endm ent
. Si m i l ar l y, Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20431

9 t ho ugh H am e rc o r r e c t l y s ugg e s t s the di s t r i c tc o ur ta ppe ar e d t o und e r t ak e credibi l i t y determ i n ati on s on h i s E i gh tA m en dm en tcl ai m s, a n y such condu cton t h e part of t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otaf fecti t s ul t i m ate r u l i n g an d H am er i s not
e n tit le d to a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g . S ti l l , H a m er a p p ea rs to h a ve m et th e ex trem ely l ow th resh old re q u i red to
s u r v i v e a 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 A su asp o n te di s m i s s al o n hi s Four t h A m en dm e nt
c la im s p r e m is e d u p o n th e a lle g a tio n o f a cr o s s -s e xs tr ip s e a r c h

. A s s u c h , th is
c l ai m s ho ul d no tha ve b e e n di s m i s s e d su asp o n te
. A ccord i n gly, w e A F F IR M i n pa rt an d R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D i n pa rt. Case: 09-20431 Document: 00511023216 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/09/2010