George v. Edholm, et al., No. 11-57075 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two officers, a medical doctor, and nurse alleging that they violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the doctor, forcibly and without consent, removed a plastic baggie containing cocaine base from plaintiff's rectum. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that the doctor's actions could be attributed to the state, based on the court's holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers provided false information, encouragement, and active physical assistance to the doctor; therefore, the officers could be held responsible for the procedures performed by the doctor; based on the Winston v. Lee factors, a jury could conclude that the procedures performed by the doctor violated the Eighth Amendment; and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim where plaintiff has not identified a single case finding a Fourteenth Amendment violation under circumstances like those here. The court declined to address issues related to the doctor. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that police officers, a doctor, and two nurses violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the doctor, forcibly and without consent, removed a plastic baggie containing cocaine base from plaintiff’s rectum. Reversing the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the police officers on the Fourth Amendment claim, the panel first held that the doctor’s conduct could be attributed to the police officers because a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers gave false information about plaintiff’s medical condition to the hospital staff and to the doctor with the intent of inducing the doctor to perform an invasive search. The panel then held that based on the factors set forth in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 759–60 (1985), a jury could conclude the procedures performed by the doctor violated the Fourth Amendment. The panel further held that the police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s separate Fourteenth Amendment claim which was based on his right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. The panel determined that it could not say that “every reasonable official” would have known the procedures performed by the doctor violated the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the panel declined to address issues related to the liability of the doctor who performed the procedure, stating that the district court could do so on remand.
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.