Evans et al v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Plaintiff Evans's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 11 ) is DISMISSED, and (2) The Court will enter an appropriate judgment contemporaneously herewith. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 8/9/18.(MRS)cc: COR, Pro Se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT LONDON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-251-DLB
BUDDY EVANS, et al.
VS.
PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KENTUCKY DEPT. OF CORR., et al.
DEFENDANTS
*** *** *** ***
Buddy Evans is an inmate in the custody of the Kentucky Department of
Corrections (“KDOC”). Proceeding without counsel, Evans filed an original and amended
civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1 at 11). This matter is before
the Court to conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
Evans states that in August 2017 he was housed at the Bell County Forestry Camp
(“BCFC”) in Pineville, Kentucky. Evans indicates that on several occasions over a tenday period, he and other inmates returning from work duties at the camp were stripsearched in view of other inmates in the visitation area, and that video surveillance
cameras were present and recording.
After one inmate complained, camp officials
deactivated or removed the cameras. Evans also indicates that officer Robbie Landrum
made offensive comments of a sexual nature to him. (Doc. # 11-2 at 1-2).
Evans indicates that another inmate filed a complaint with prison officials under the
Prison Rape Elimination Act, and suggests that this satisfied his own obligation to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. He further alleges that an inmate grievance
1
was filed regarding the searches, but that the warden deviated from the KDOC grievance
protocol by denying it immediately. Evans suggests that he did not appeal from that
denial.1 (Doc # 11 at 5; 11-2 at 2).
Evans contends that the searches violated his rights under the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments, and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Evans names as defendants the
Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”), BCFC Warden Keith Helton, Lieutenant
Eddie Payne, Sergeant James Dibrell, and BCFC officers Paul Powers, Robbie Landrum,
and Aaron Gaylor, each in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. # 11 at 1-2, 4;
Doc. # 11-2 at 3).
The Supreme Court has long adhered to the rule that maintaining safety and
security in a prison environment requires inmates to sacrifice some measure of the rights
they previously enjoyed in civil society. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 540-46 (1979).
Among these is the right to personal privacy, and thus inmates may be subjected to
searches of their person and property without violating their constitutional rights. Florence
v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burmingham, 566 U.S. 318, 328-30 (2012).
Strip searches, in some circumstances, may be more invasive. Stoudemire v.
Mich. Dept. of Corr., 705 F. 3d 560, 572-73 (6th Cir. 2013) (“a strip search, by its very
nature, constitutes an extreme intrusion upon personal privacy ...”) (quoting Wood v.
Clemons, 89 F. 3d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1996)). Consideration of several factors, such as
the location of the search, the manner in which it was conducted, and the necessity for
1
There is good reason to question whether these steps were sufficient for Evans to fully and properly
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The allegations of the Complaint are not entirely clear on that point, and the
Court therefore rests its analysis on other grounds.
2
the search, may render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at
572. Here, Evans indicates that the search was conducted in an open place in view of
other inmates, and in view of corrections officials through the surveillance cameras. On
the other hand, he indicates that the searches did not involve any physical contact with
prison guards. At the pleading stage a plaintiff is only required “to plausibly allege - rather
than demonstrate - that the jail acted unreasonably.” Williams v. City of Cleveland, 771
F. 3d 945, 954 (6th Cir. 2014). That said, other courts facing claims arising from strip
searches conducted under similar circumstances have found no constitutional violation.
Cf. Kick v. Christian Co., Ky., No. 5: 16-CV-74-TBR, 2017 WL 2312698, at *2-3 (W.D. Ky.
May 26, 2017) (dismissing Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims for no-contact strip
search of inmate conducted in presence of other inmates).
There are, however, other concerns that warrant dismissal. First, while Evans
named several individual officers as defendants in this action (Doc. # 11 at 1-2), he made
specific factual allegations against only Officer Landrum in the body of the Complaint
(Doc. # 11-2 at 1-2). Regarding the strip searches, Evans generically states that “the
defendants” conducted the searches. But KDOC as an organization plainly did not do so,
nor does Evans suggest that BCFC Warden Keith Helton was personally conducting strip
searches of inmates at the camp. Personal liability in a § 1983 action hinges upon the
defendant official’s personal involvement in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil rights.
Nwaebo v. Hawk-Sawyer, 83 F. App’x 85, 86 (6th Cir. 2003); Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 325-26 (1981). Accordingly, federal notice pleading requires, at a minimum,
that a complaint advise each defendant of what he allegedly did or did not do that forms
the basis of the plaintiff’s claim against him. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
3
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F. 3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008).
Evans’s broad and generic
allegations do not satisfy that minimum pleading requirement.
Evans does allege that Officer Landrum made inappropriate comments of a sexual
nature to him. (Doc. #11-2 at 1). That allegation is specific enough, but it fails to state a
claim of constitutional dimension. The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to
provide conditions of confinement that are humane. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
832 (1994). Derogatory or abusive comments from guards are unprofessional and cannot
be condoned, but they do not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. Ivey v. Wilson, 832
F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F. 3d 539,
546 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that “harassment and verbal abuse . . . do not constitute the
type of infliction of pain that the Eighth Amendment prohibits.”).
Finally, Evans alleges that the strip searches were humiliating and caused him to
suffer from anxiety. (Doc. # 11-2 at 3). However, he does not allege that he suffered any
physical injury from the searches, and federal law does not permit recovery for purely
emotional harm in a civil rights action. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal civil action may
be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody
without a prior showing of physical injury.”). This statute prohibits a constitutional claim
arising from a strip search where the search does not cause physical injury. Jackson v.
Herrington, 393 F. App’x 348, 354-55 (6th Cir. 2010) (“absent injury related to the strip
search, his Eighth Amendment claim is not cognizable under § 1997e(e).”); Adams v.
Rockafellow, 66 F. App’x 584, 586 (6th Cir. 2003) (same); Bey v. Garber, No. 99-1471,
2000 WL 658721, at *1 (6th Cir. May 12, 2000) (same). While the humiliation Evans may
4
have suffered is regrettable, federal law provides that it is not a sufficient foundation upon
which to base a claim under § 1983.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff Evans’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #11) is DISMISSED, and
(2)
The Court will enter an appropriate judgment contemporaneously herewith.
This 9th day of August, 2018.
L:\DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\Evans 17-251-DLB Memorandum RBW.docx
5
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?