Joe Allen Robles, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Warden Crist and Officer Garcia, Defendants-appellees, 83 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: HALL, THOMPSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Joe Allen Robles, Arizona state prisoner appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding strip searches of work crews who return from outside the prison gates.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We agree with the district court that prison officials did not violate Robles' Fourth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights when they strip-searched him in a private room adjoining the prison gate upon his return from a work crew assignment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2334, 2338 (1991); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 522 (1979); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 329 (9th Cir. 1988); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.2
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Robles raises for the first time on appeal that his disciplinary segregation and loss of good-time credits were unconstitutional. Because Robles failed to raise these issues in the district court, we decline to address them for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1012 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984)
Robles motion for extension of time to file a "good brief" is denied as moot
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.
