Lewis v. Gault et al (INMATE2)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Calvin Lee Lewis, that this complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Objections to R&R due by 3/27/2006. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 3/15/2006. (dmn)

Lewis v. Gault et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 4

Case 3:06-cv-00221-MEF-DRB

Document 4

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A ST E R N DIVISION _______________________________ C A LV IN L. LEWIS P l a i n t if f , v. R IC K GAULT, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * * 3:06-CV-221-MEF (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE C o m p l a in i n g about a violation of his right to privacy and a denial of due process, P la in tiff, Calvin Lewis ["Lewis"], files this civil rights action seeking punitive damages and a n investigation of the Opelika City Jail. Named as defendants are Sharon Pitts and Rick G a u lt. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. DISCUSSION A . The Privacy Claim Le w is is an inmate at the Opelika City Jail. On February 19, 2006 Lewis states that

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00221-MEF-DRB

Document 4

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 2 of 4

h e was cleaning a bathroom at the jail on a work detail. While cleaning the bathroom, Lewis p ro c e e d e d to use the facilities and while so engaged, Defendant Pitts entered the bathroom. L ew is contends that Defendant Pitts's conduct violated his right to privacy. While inmates retain certain rights of privacy under the Constitution, including the righ t not to be viewed naked by a member of the opposite sex when not reasonably n ec essa ry, see Lee v. Downs, 641 F.2d 1117, 1120 (4 th Cir. 1981), Cumbey v. Meachum, 684 F . 2 d 712 (10 th Cir. 1982) , Lewis's allegation fails to assert a viable Fourth Amendment vio la tio n . Assuming, arguendo, that Lewis actually had a right to privacy in the area in w h ich Defendant Pitts observed him, this single incident falls far short of the Fourth A m e n d m e n ts ' proscriptions. Consequently, this claim is due to be dismissed under the p rovision s of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

B . The Due Process Claim W h ile Lewis's due process claim is short on details, the court understand him to allege that on February 27, 2006 he bonded out on the bathroom incident discussed, infra, a n d "was sent back to court the next week" without ever talking to an officer or having been a rre ste d . (Doc. No. 1, pg. 3.) p roc ess. Lewis's allegation, as pled, does not support a cause of action against either of the n am ed defendants with respect to the conduct about which he complains. While the court is well aware that pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted 2 Lewis maintains that this action violated his right to due

Case 3:06-cv-00221-MEF-DRB

Document 4

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 3 of 4

b y attorneys, Lewis's allegation is devoid of any comprehensible cause of action against D efe n d an ts Gault and Pitts, and, it is, therefore, due to be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). See also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976) (to state a due process claim c o gn iz a b le under § 1983, a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee safe gu ard in g the interests that have been violated).

II. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in gly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this c o m p la in t be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the d irec tives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d atio n on or before March 27, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d vis e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a gis tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in gs in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain 3

Case 3:06-cv-00221-MEF-DRB

Document 4

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 4 of 4

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P ric h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on Se p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 15 th day of March 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd
D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE