United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Nancy
G. Edmunds United States District Court
This is
a civil action brought by a Michigan prisoner. The Court has
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action if the complaint is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The
Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying this
standard, the action will be dismissed because it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I.
Complaint
Plaintiff
is serving a sentence of imprisonment at the Central Michigan
Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. The complaint
names seven Defendants: (1) Corrections Officer (CO)
Cowlings, (2) CO Pipkins, (3) CO Raycraft, (4) CO Most, (5)
Sgt. Moall, (6) Lt. Zenn, and (7) Warden Christansen.
Plaintiff
asserts that on April 17, 2019, Defendants Pipkins, Raycraft,
and Cowlings ordered Plaintiff to be strip searched in view
of other prisoners. Plaintiff does not allege any details
regarding the search, but he claims that he felt humiliated,
degraded, and sexually harassed.
Plaintiff
asserts that the next day he informed CO McDonald about the
strip search, and he was sent to Defendant Zenn. Plaintiff
claims that Zenn viewed a video and maintained the incident
never occurred.
The
next day Plaintiff filed a grievance, and he was interviewed
by Sgt. Davis. Davis found that the search violated MDOC
policy. A report Plaintiff attaches to his complaint confirms
that Pipkins, Raycraft, and Cowlings, conducted strip
searches of prisoners in groups of three instead of
individually on the date in question. Dkt. 1, at 11. Davis
ordered the three corrections officers to be instructed on
proper strip search policy. Id.
Plaintiff
asserts that he was thereafter “flagged down” by
Defendant Most and Pipkins who “verbally assault[ed]
and threaten[ed]” him. Id. at 6. Plaintiff
claims they did this in retaliation for his filing a
grievance regarding the strip search. Plaintiff then filed a
retaliation grievance. Defendant Moall interviewed Plaintiff
about the second grievance, and Plaintiff asserts that he
conducted a “poor investigation to cover up the acts of
retaliation.” Id. at 7. Finally, Plaintiff
claims that Defendant Warden Christiansen failed to take any
further corrective action in his Step II grievance.
II.
Discussion
“A
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, dismissal is appropriate where
the plaintiff fails to plead sufficient factual content to
permit the court “to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see
also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is also
appropriate where the allegations, taken as true, establish
that relief is barred by an affirmative defense such as
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of
limitations, or absolute immunity. Jones, 549 U.S.
at 215.
A.
Strip Search Participants
Plaintiff
claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by
Defendants Cowlings, Pipkins, and Raycraft when they
conducted a strip search of him in front of other prisoners.
Under
the Fourth Amendment, “a convicted prisoner maintains
some reasonable expectations of privacy while in
prison.” Cornwell v. Dahlberg, 963 F.2d 912,
916 (6th Cir. 1992). See also Stoudemire v. Mich.
Dep't of Corr., 705 F.3d 560, 572 n.2 (6th Cir.
2013). However, Plaintiff has not alleged that he was singled
out for a search, that any search was overly invasive, or
that the search was unrelated to a legitimate penological or
security interest. See Stoudemire, 705 F.3d at
571-74. Aside from Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that
he that “felt humiliated, degraded, and sexually
harassed, ” plaintiff has failed to allege any facts
that rise to the level of an actionable claim under the
Fourth Amendment. Cf. Green v. Santiago, 224
F.Supp.3d 154, 164 (D. Conn. 2016) (“accusations of
humiliation and embarrassment caused by strip searches, on
their own, do not state a claim under the Fourth
Amendment”). Plaintiff does not allege that he was
searched in front of correction officers of the opposite sex,
that the search was conducted in front of numerous other
prisoners (records indicate that there were only two other
prisoners present), or that the search was performed in an
overly invasive way. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims under
the Fourth Amendment will be dismissed.
B.
...