Hernandez v. Bass

Background

Guillermo P. Hernandez, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, filed this case without a lawyer. He alleged that, on October 8, 2022, Lieutenant C. Bass, Sergeant M. Taylor, and Sergeant E. Simpson directed a correctional officer, presumably E. Castillo, to conduct an unclothed search of him while female nursing staff, kitchen staff, and correctional officers watched. Hernandez alleged that the search caused emotional trauma, violated his civil rights, and violated title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3278(b). He sought damages and attached a prison grievance and response sustaining his complaint.

Hernandez also stated that there were more than 100 plaintiffs and listed John Riley and Jesse Rose as additional plaintiffs. The opinion states that approximately nine other cases concerning the same unclothed body search had been filed in the district.

Screening and Claims

Because Hernandez is a prisoner suing prison staff, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court construed Hernandez’s filing liberally because he was representing himself.

The court dismissed John Riley and Jesse Rose from this action because neither had signed the complaint, applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees, or otherwise indicated a desire to bring the action. The court also stated that Hernandez could not pursue claims on behalf of other people while representing himself. Their dismissal was without prejudice to filing a separate action.

The court concluded that Hernandez had stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, against Bass, Taylor, Simpson, and Castillo for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The court explained that some cross-gender strip searches may be unconstitutional and that the search’s frequency, manner, scope, legitimate purpose, and viewing circumstances are relevant. Although Hernandez alleged a one-time public search, the court found his allegations plausible because he claimed that female prison staff viewed him fully unclothed, without obstruction, from very near, and without a legitimate reason. The court did not decide whether a constitutional violation ultimately occurred.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court ordered service on Lieutenant C. Bass, Sergeant M. Taylor, Sergeant E. Simpson, and Correctional Officer E. Castillo through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. The order directed the prison department and the California Attorney General’s Office to process service waivers and set deadlines for answers if formal service became necessary.

The court also established a schedule for dispositive motions, including summary judgment, and explained procedures for any motion asserting that Hernandez had failed to complete required prison grievance procedures. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted defendants permission to depose Hernandez and other necessary witnesses confined in prison. The court required Hernandez to keep the court informed of address changes and stated that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if court mail was returned and he did not provide a current address within the stated period.

Judge Jon Tigar therefore dismissed the two proposed co-plaintiffs without prejudice, recognized Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim against the four named prison employees as cognizable, and ordered service so the case could proceed. The order was a screening and service decision, not a final decision on the merits.