Unpublished Disposition, 904 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseFrank WHITESHIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Nicholas ARMENAKIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-35504.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 1990.* Decided May 29, 1990.
Before SCHROEDER, REINHARDT and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Frank Whiteshield, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.
Whiteshield contends that his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated when he was strip searched in the presence of female prison guards. This contention lacks merit.
Where the presence of female guards during a strip search is reasonably related to prison needs, their presence does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333-34 (9th Cir. 1988); Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 493-96 (9th Cir. 1985).
Whiteshield fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the presence of female guards was not reasonably related to prison needs. Therefore, the district court correctly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
