Court Opinion

ID: 9378621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 01:00:31.891785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.179480
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10671         Document: 00516673352             Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                          March 10, 2023
                                         No. 21-10671                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

   Reyce Janon Cook, also known as Reyce Cook,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Charles R. Horsely, Warden; Joe Milburn, Assistant
   Warden; Matthew T. Seymour, Major; Jacob D.
   Williams, Captain; White, Sergeant; Jane Doe,
   Cadet(s); John Doe, Cadet(s),

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 2:18-CV-77

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Reyce Janon Cook (“Cook”), a prisoner with the Texas Department
   of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), brought a Section 1983 claim against multiple
   prison guards and administrators alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights
   were violated when he was strip searched as part of a training exercise in the

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-10671      Document: 00516673352           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                     No. 21-10671

   presence of female guards and dozens of other inmates. The district court
   dismissed Cook’s complaint with prejudice, and he was issued a strike
   pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We REVERSE in part, VACATE in part,
   and REMAND.
                                   I. Background
          Cook was incarcerated at the TDCJ Neal Unit. On December 22,
   2017, Captain Jacob Williams, Sergeant White, multiple other prison guards,
   and 40 to 50 male and female prison guard cadets entered a prison dorm to
   conduct a strip search training exercise. As part of the training exercise,
   cadets ordered Cook to remove his clothing and expose his genitals and anal
   cavity within view of other cadets, inmates, and prison officers.
   Approximately twenty-five of the cadets and guards who were present for and
   participated in the strip search were female. Cook alleges that portions of the
   search were conducted by cadets without gloves, despite an outbreak of staph
   infection in the Neal Unit. Prison officials videotaped and photographed the
   training exercise. Cook alleges that Warden Charles R. Horsely, Assistant
   Warden Joe Milburn, and Major Matthew T. Seymour (collectively “Prison
   Administrators”) approved the exercise.
                              II. Standard of Review
          We review the district court’s dismissal of Cook’s claims for abuse of
   discretion. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). A
   complaint is frivolous if it lacks (1) an arguable basis in law because “it is
   based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or (2) an arguable basis in
   fact “if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional
   facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Berry v. Brady,
   192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). We must assume that
   a plaintiff’s factual allegations are true, Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234, 236
   (5th Cir. 1999), and we recognize that a pro se prisoner is entitled to factually

                                          2
Case: 21-10671        Document: 00516673352         Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                     No. 21-10671

   develop his complaint before a proper determination can be made as to
   whether it is frivolous, see Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9–10 (5th Cir. 1994).
                                    III. Analysis
          We first address Cook’s claims that his strip search was unreasonable
   because “there was no legitimate penological justification for the search.”
   Under the Fourth Amendment, “searches or seizures conducted on
   prisoners must be reasonable under all the facts and circumstances in which
   they are performed.” Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 190–91 (5th Cir.
   1994) (citation omitted). In analyzing the reasonableness of a search, the
   district court is required to balance the need for the search against the
   invasion of personal rights that the search entails by considering the scope of
   the intrusion, the manner in which the search was conducted, the
   justification for the search, and the place in which the search was
   conducted. See Watt v. City of Richardson Police Dep’t, 849 F.2d 195, 196–97
   (5th Cir. 1988).
          Since the district court did not evaluate the reasonableness of Cook’s
   strip search, the dismissal of Cook’s complaint against the participating
   guards and cadets was premature. See, e.g., Rutila v. Dep’t of Transp., 12 F.4th
   509, 511 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021) (“But, ‘mindful that we are a court of review, not
   of first view,’ we opt not to seek out alternative grounds on which we might
   uphold the judgment.” (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7
   (2005))); Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 546–47 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that
   we are a “court of review, not of first view” and remanding a matter not
   addressed by the district court for examination in the first instance (quotation
   omitted)). On the face of his pleadings, Cook appears to have articulated a
   viable argument that the strip search was unreasonable. Further fact inquiry
   through a Spears hearing should help the district court evaluate the
   reasonableness of the search. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181–82

                                          3
Case: 21-10671      Document: 00516673352            Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                      No. 21-10671

   (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we VACATE the dismissal of Cook’s Fourth
   Amendment challenge to the strip search.
          In addition to filing suit against the guards and cadets that participated
   in the strip search, Cook brought suit against the Prison Administrators
   under Section 1983 for their failure to properly train and supervise the guards
   and cadets who conducted the search. The district court dismissed Cook’s
   claims against the Prison Administrators on the premise that his claims were
   based solely on vicarious liability, which is not permissible under section
   1983. However, the district court did acknowledge that Cook could have
   succeeded on his claims if he had alleged that the defendants “either
   implemented an unconstitutional policy that directly resulted in injury to the
   plaintiff or failed to properly train a subordinate employee.”
          The filings of a pro se litigant are “‘to be liberally construed,’ . . . and
   ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
   standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” Erickson v. Pardus,
   551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
   (1976)). Furthermore, a pro se complaint “can only be dismissed for failure to
   state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
   facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Estelle, 429
   U.S. at 106 (internal quotations omitted). If it appears that insufficient factual
   allegations could be remedied, “the principal vehicles which have evolved for
   remedying inadequacy in prisoner pleadings are the Spears hearing and a
   questionnaire to bring into focus the factual and legal bases of prisoners’
   claims.” Eason, 14 F.3d at 9 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
          Accepting Cook’s allegations as true, the district court erred in
   dismissing his complaint against the Prison Administrators. Cook alleged that
   the Prison Administrators “approved this illegal search.” When construed
   liberally, this claim suffices as a prima facie case that the Prison

                                           4
Case: 21-10671     Document: 00516673352           Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                    No. 21-10671

   Administrators “either implemented an unconstitutional policy that directly
   resulted in injury to the plaintiff or failed to properly train a subordinate
   employee.” Further allegations from the complaint, including that the search
   was conducted and supervised by senior level prison guards and was
   photographed and filmed supports this reading of Cook’s complaint.
   Accordingly, it is not “beyond doubt” that Cook could prove a set of facts
   that would support his claims. A Spears hearing or questionnaire would be
   especially helpful in assisting both Cook and the district court in evaluating
   Cook’s claims against the Prison Administrators. For the above reasons, we
   REVERSE the district court’s dismissal as to this claim and REMAND for
   further proceedings. In accordance with this reversal, the strike issued to
   Cook under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is nullified. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
   F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                         5