Cramer v. Dickinson et al
Filing
30
ORDER ADOPTING 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint; ORDER Allowing Plaintiff to File Limited Amended Complaint signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/08/2011. Amended Complaint due by 7/12/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LATANYA CRAMER,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-375-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
v.
S. DICKINSON, et al.,
ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
LIMITED AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 27 & 28)
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Latanya Cramer, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
16
filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
17
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
18
On February 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendation
19
recommending that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure
20
to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
21
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a
22
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
23
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court
24
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims regarding being pulled, yanked, and
25
threatened are not sufficient to state a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court agrees with
26
the Magistrate Judge that the alleged facts are insufficient to state a violation of the First
27
Amendment. In addition, the court notes that prison officials’ failures to properly follow orders
28
or prison protocol are insufficient to state a violation of the Constitution. However, from
1
1
reviewing the entire file, it appears Plaintiff may be able to allege a Fourth Amendment claim
2
and/or an Eighth Amendment claim against S. Dickinson and R. A. Johnson concerning the body
3
cavity search.
4
As such, leave to amend will be given on this issue only.
The Fourth Amendment protects prisoners from unreasonable searches, including the
5
invasion of bodily privacy. Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 974-75 (9th
6
Cir. 2010); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332-34 (9th Cir. 1988). Reasonableness is
7
determined by the context, which requires a balancing of the need for the particular search
8
against the invasion of personal rights that search entails. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-59
9
(1979) (quotations omitted); Bull, 595 F.3d at 971-72; Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1227
10
(9th Cir. 2010).
11
justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted must all be considered. Bell,
12
441 U.S. at 559; Bull at 972. Throughout this action, Plaintiff has contended that S. Dickinson
13
and P. A. Johnson conducted the body cavity search on Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent and
14
without any reason to believe Plaintiff had contraband. Because this may state a Fourth
15
Amendment claim, Plaintiff is given leave to amend this specific issue.
16
The scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the
In addition, the Eighth Amendment protects inmates from repetitive and harassing
17
searches. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). Plaintiff not only has implied that the
18
body cavity search was done to harass Plaintiff, but Plaintiff also has implied that it was done
19
with unnecessary force, causing injury. The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates
20
the Eighth Amendment. Wilkins v. Gaddy, – U.S. – , 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010); Hudson v.
21
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff contends the body cavity search
22
was conducted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm, and not to maintain
23
discipline, Plaintiff may be able to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
24
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:
25
1.
26
27
28
The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 22, 2011, is adopted subject
to the above analysis;
2.
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted;
2
1
3.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint that contains a Fourth
2
Amendment claim and/or Eighth Amendment claim against S. Dickinson and P.
3
A. Johnson based on the body cavity search;
4
4.
All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED without leave to amend and any
5
amended complaint containing additional claims and Defendants will be stricken
6
from the record;
7
5.
8
9
Any amended complaint SHALL BE FILED within thirty days of this order’s date
of service; and
6.
Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file an amended complaint that sufficiently
10
states a Fourth Amendment claim and/or an Eighth Amendment claim based on
11
the body cavity search will result in this action’s dismissal.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
0m8i78
June 8, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
