Pulido Segura v. Bass

Background

Patricio Pulido Segura, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that on October 8, 2022, prison staff directed him and more than 100 other prisoners to undergo an unclothed body search on the prison yard. The search allegedly occurred in view of female correctional, nursing, and kitchen staff and without any privacy shielding. Pulido Segura sought money damages.

Screening analysis

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also described the requirements for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: the plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional or federal-law right by someone acting under state authority.

The court discussed Ninth Circuit decisions concerning searches of prisoners by staff of another gender. It stated that a cross-gender strip search involving touching an inmate’s genitals and searching inside the anus is unreasonable in a non-emergency situation. It also noted that not every cross-gender observation or search is unlawful, including infrequent and casual observation at a distance that is reasonably related to prison needs.

Ruling

The court held that Pulido Segura’s allegations, liberally construed, were sufficient to proceed. The order did not make a final determination that the alleged search violated the Constitution; it allowed the claim to move forward after screening.

The court ordered electronic service on Lieutenant C. Bass, Sergeant M. Taylor, Sergeant E. Simpson, and Correctional Officer E. Castillo at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. It established procedures for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the United States Marshals Service to complete service. It also ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. The order authorized discovery and warned Pulido Segura that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).