Brown v. Bass

Background

Michael Larue Brown, a former prisoner formerly incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer against prison officials. The opinion states that Brown had previously filed a substantially similar lawsuit and voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice after the court ordered service. The court screened this complaint because Brown was proceeding without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Claims and Screening Ruling

Brown alleged that Lieutenant Bass, Sergeant Taylor, and Sergeant Simpson orchestrated an unclothed body search on October 8, 2022. He alleged that Taylor ordered him and other prisoners to fully disrobe and perform the search procedures, including lifting over, squatting and coughing, and showing the bottoms of their feet. Brown said he asked to perform the search indoors for modesty reasons, but Bass and Taylor refused.

Brown further alleged that the search took place in view of a staff entry gate, three nurses, about fifteen other prisoners, the three named defendants, and more than fifteen other correctional officers. He alleged that female prison staff viewed him fully unclothed from nearby and without an obstruction. The court held that, although Brown alleged a one-time search, the alleged scope and manner of the search were enough to state a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. The court therefore found a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights.

Brown also alleged that the search was retaliation for smoking by prisoners during the prior night shift. The court found that he did not state a First Amendment retaliation claim because smoking was not protected activity.

Orders

The court ordered service of the complaint on Bass, Taylor, and Simpson through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. The order sets procedures for service waivers, answers, dispositive motions, opposition and reply deadlines, and discovery. It also advises Brown about the requirements for opposing a future motion for summary judgment and about exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The opinion does not enter final judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. It allows that claim to proceed past screening and directs service on the three defendants. The court separately stated that Brown’s non-prisoner motion to proceed without paying the filing fee would be granted by a separate order.