Story v. Foote, No. 13-2834 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseStory, an African-American inmate in Arkansas, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights during a visual body-cavity search that occurred after Story returned to the Williams Correctional Facility from the Pine Bluff unit school. Story alleges that officers told him to remove his clothes, to lift his genitals, and to bend over and spread his buttocks and that the search took place in front of other inmates and in view of security cameras so female correctional officers observed the search through a video feed. He claims that an officer called him “monkey.” The district court, screening the complaints before service of process (28 U.S.C. 1915A), dismissed them without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Story did not establish that the search violated his clearly established constitutional rights. The officers were not on clear notice that the aspects of the search to which Story objects contravened the Fourth Amendment.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a visual body-cavity search of his person when he returned to the correctional facility from outside the institution, the male officers conducting the search did not violate plaintiff's rights by performing the search in a location where it might be viewed by a female officer in a master video control room or where other male inmates might be present; use of a derogatory term during the search did not rise to the level of racial harassment; as a result, plaintiff did not allege sufficient acts to support a plausible claim that the search violated his clearly established constitutional rights, and the district court did not err in dismissing the case prior to service. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.