Lewis v. Gault et al (INMATE2)
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)
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).
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
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
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
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?