Johnson v. Neuschmid
| Decision Date | 17 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-cv-01598-WBS-CKD-P,2:19-cv-01598-WBS-CKD-P |
| Parties | LACEDRIC WILLIAM JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT NEUSCHMID, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
At all times relevant to the instant action, plaintiff was a prisoner at California State Prison-Solano. Plaintiff alleges that on November 6, 2018 he was ordered to submit to an unclothed body search by defendants J. Martinez and A. Muhammad. ECF No. 1 at 4. According to plaintiff, this mass strip search was authorized by defendant R. Neuschmid, the Warden at CSP-Solano. ECF No. 1 at 7. Prior to being searched, plaintiff was forced to remain naked for approximately 45 minutes in the presence of "50 plus inmates, 20 guards of both genders and 4 P[rison] I[ndustry] A[uthority] supervisors...," one of whom was female. ECF No. 1 at 5. As a Muslim, this violated plaintiff's religious beliefs of guarding one's modesty. Id. When plaintiff asked defendant J. Martinez for an accommodation based on his religious beliefs, he was informed that everyone was subject to the strip search. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this resulted in a violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches, and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 7-9. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 1 at 10.
In order to state a claim cognizable in a civil rights action, a plaintiff must connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed denial of his rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (). Additionally, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998).
To the extent that plaintiff sues defendants in their official capacity, he is advised that "[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities." Aholelei v. Dep't of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against all of the named defendants in their official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.1
Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions or omissions of subordinate employees based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep't of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). "A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is 'a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.'" Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). "Under the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation." Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d at 646) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Fourth Amendment prohibits only searches deemed to be unreasonable. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558 (1979); Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 629 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2011); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1988). The reasonableness of the search is determined by the context, which "requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails." Bell, 441 U.S. at 559. Factors that must be evaluated are "1) the existence of a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; 2) the existence of alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates; 3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally; and 4) the absence of ready alternatives as evidence of the reasonableness of the regulation." Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 331 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)). Strip searches have been held constitutionally permissible by the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012); Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Ninth Circuit has held that occasional viewing of unclothed male prisoners by female correctional officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the inmates. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 334 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 494-95 (9th Cir. 1985).
"The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs does not terminate at the prison door." McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing O'Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). The right to free exercise of religious faith is, however, 'necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security." McElyea, 833 F.2d at 197. Federal courts "determine whether these competing interests are balanced properly by applying a 'reasonableness' test." Id. Action by prison officials that impacts an inmate's right to free exercise of religion "is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
While "the Ninth Circuit has recognized that sexual harassment may constitute a cognizable claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, the Court has specifically differentiated between sexual harassment that involves verbal abuse and that which involves allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial