Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Joe Allen Robles appeals from the district court's denial of his section 1983 complaint. The district court, finding that the complaint was disjointed and ambiguous, dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We affirm.

FACTS

Petitioner's complaint is essentially indecipherable. It mentions strip searches, peeping toms, and the placement of a rusty nail in petitioner's mattress. The complaint names J.D. Byrd, C-B 2 P-C, as the sole defendant. The complaint fails to identify or discuss this individual.

DISCUSSION

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). This court reviews a dismissal of a pro se complaint de novo. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

It is clear that the complaint is frivolous for several reasons. First, there is no allegation of state action. The case was brought against J.D. Byrd. There are no factual allegations that describe his status or address his role in any wrongdoing. Petitioner's general complaints appear to be directed at prison authorities, but he fails to identify any of them.

Second, when read most broadly, petitioner's complaint fails to present a deprivation of constitutional or civil rights. His one decipherable claim appears to involve strip searches. This claim lacks merit. This court has already held that strip searches are generally constitutional. See Rickman v. Avaniti, 854 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that routine visual body cavity searches are generally constitutional).

Finally the district court correctly found that it was "difficult if not impossible to ascertain any possible constitutional claims" in the complaint. A court may dismiss a complaint under section 1915(d) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 1984). That standard has clearly been met in this case.

AFFIRMED.