Court Opinion

ID: 9912304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 01:00:46.623788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:32.109610
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30723         Document: 00517010892             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30723
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                               December 21, 2023
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Anthony Johnson, also known as Anthony Paul Johnson,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
   Corrections;
   Luke Rheams, Colonel;
   James Arnold, Louisiana State Penitentiary Assistant Warden,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-595
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anthony Johnson, Louisiana prisoner #600482, appeals the dismissal
   for failure to state a claim, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of
   his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. We review the dismissal de novo, accepting the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30723       Document: 00517010892         Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30723

   facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most
   favorable to the plaintiff. Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir.
   2020). Dismissal is appropriate only where a complaint does not “contain
   sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
   plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
            Johnson renews his claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were
   violated when Assistant Warden Arnold and Colonel Rheams subjected him
   to a strip and cavity search without any penological justification solely to
   embarrass him in front of a female guard. Although Johnson also asserts that
   the strip search violated his Eighth Amendment rights, the district court
   correctly concluded that an inmate’s bodily-privacy claim is analyzed under
   the Fourth Amendment, not the Eighth. See Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234,
   237 (5th Cir. 1999). Johnson does not brief any argument renewing his claims
   against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and has
   thus forfeited them.    See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir.
   1993).
            “A prisoner retains, at best, a very minimal Fourth Amendment inter-
   est in privacy after incarceration.” McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 656
   (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A prison-
   er’s rights are diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institution in
   which he is incarcerated. He thus loses those rights that are necessarily
   sacrificed to legitimate penological needs.” Moore, 168 F.3d at 236–37 (inter-
   nal quotation marks and 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 con-
   ducted.” Watt v. City of Richardson Police Dep’t, 849 F.2d 195, 196–97 (5th

                                          2
Case: 22-30723        Document: 00517010892         Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                     No. 22-30723

   Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Johnson’s allegations of a strip search conducted without any justifica-
   tion in view of a female guard with the intent to embarrass him states a facially
   valid Fourth Amendment claim. See Hutchins v. McDaniel, 512 F.3d 193, 195–
   96 (5th Cir. 2007). In dismissing the complaint, the district court did not
   address the reasonableness of the search, did not conduct a balancing test,
   and did not address or accept as true Johnson’s assertion that the search was
   done without any justification and solely to embarrass him; instead, the court
   concluded, incorrectly, that, because Johnson did not allege that the female
   guard conducted the strip search, he did not allege a Fourth Amendment
   claim. See Heinze, 971 F.3d at 479; Hutchins, 512 F.3d at 195–96; Watt,
   849 F.2d at 196–97.
          On the face of his pleadings, Johnson appears to have articulated a
   viable argument that the strip search was unreasonable. Further factual
   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
   (5th Cir. 1985).
          Accordingly, the dismissals of Johnson’s claims against the Depart-
   ment of Public Safety and Corrections and of his Eighth Amendment claim
   are AFFIRMED. The dismissal of his Fourth Amendment challenge to the
   strip search is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
          We express no view on the ultimate merits of any claim, and we make
   no indication of how the district court should rule on remand. We place no
   limitation on what issues the court should address or on how it should elect
   to proceed.

                                          3