Click Back Button to Return to Publication
JAMES RAY WILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL SERRANO; GREG JONES;
M. WITCHER; H. HUERTA; C.O. LARKINS, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 00-55997
37 Fed. Appx. 252; 2002 U.S.
App. Lexis 9736
May 20, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO
THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not
be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth
Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff James Ray Wiley appeals the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Defendants Serrano, Jones, Witcher, Huerta, and Larkins in
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for alleged violations of Plaintiff's Fourth and
Eighth Amendment rights. We affirm.
A. Fourth Amendment Claim
Plaintiff first contends that
Defendants' manual search of his rectal cavity violated the Fourth Amendment.
In this circuit, a digital bodily cavity
search of a prison inmate complies with the Fourth Amendment if three
conditions are met. First, prison officials must have reasonable cause to
search the inmate.
Vaughan v. Ricketts, 950 F.2d 1464, 1468-69 (9th Cir. 1991) (Vaughan II). Second, the search must serve a
valid penological need. Tribble v.
Gardner, 860 F.2d 321, 325 (9th Cir. 1988). Third, the search must be conducted
in a reasonable manner. Vaughan v. Ricketts, 859 F.2d 736, 741 (9th Cir. 1988)
(Vaughan I).
Here, the undisputed facts show
that all three conditions were met. (1) Defendants had reasonable cause to
search Plaintiff's rectal cavity based on the corroborated evidence that Plaintiff
was dealing drugs while in prison, and on the fact that prisoners often hide
contraband in bodily cavities because of the absence of other hiding places in
prison. (2) Defendants had a [*254] valid penological objective: preventing
drugs from entering the administrative segregation unit where Plaintiff, and
the others being searched, were about to be transferred. (3) Finally, although
Plaintiff complains that the search caused pain, the undisputed facts show that
the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. It was performed in the
infirmary's emergency room, by a doctor who was assisted by a registered nurse
and a medical technical assistant. The doctor used a lubricated plastic scope
to conduct the
search, which lasted a minute or less. Plaintiff did not complain of pain
during the search. Plaintiff received a medical evaluation from a medical
technical assistant following the search.
Plaintiff nevertheless asserts
that Defendants must show, in addition to the foregoing, that they complied with
prison regulations requiring that prison officials exhaust all less intrusive
search methods before performing a manual rectal cavity search. However, we
have held that the fact that prison regulations set higher standards for
searches of inmates than does the Fourth Amendment does not mean that prison
officials must comply with those standards to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
Vaughan II, 950 F.2d at 1469.
In
short, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim.
B. Eighth Amendment Claim
Plaintiff also argues that the
search violated the Eighth Amendment.
To establish an Eighth Amendment violation,
an inmate must show either that (1) prison officials inflicted pain on an
inmate "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing
harm," or (2) prison officials were deliberately indifferent to inadequate
conditions of confinement. Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Neither condition is present in this case.
As discussed above, the undisputed facts show that the search was for the
purpose of ensuring that Plaintiff did not bring drugs into administrative
segregation, not for the purpose of causing him pain or harm. The undisputed
facts show further that the search was conducted in a reasonable manner,
briefly and by a doctor, a nurse, and a medical assistant. Plaintiff was
offered medical assistance immediately both after the search and again a few
days later, belying any claim that Defendants were indifferent, let alone
deliberately so, to Plaintiff's medical needs. In the circumstances, the
district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.
AFFIRMED.
Click Back Button to Return
to Publication