Malone v. Zarate

Background

DeShawn P. Malone, who was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously dismissed some claims and parties. After those rulings, A. S. Zarate Ponce was the only remaining defendant. Malone claimed that Zarate Ponce violated the Eighth Amendment by subjecting him to an unclothed body search during a random cell search on February 4, 2023. Malone alleged that the cell door was fully open, exposing him to people in the dayroom and female staff, and that body cameras were recording. He sought punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Motion and evidence

Zarate Ponce moved for summary judgment, arguing that Malone could not establish an Eighth Amendment violation and that qualified immunity protected the officer. Malone filed no opposition. The court nevertheless considered the motion on its merits because an unopposed motion cannot be granted solely because the opposing party did not respond. The court treated Malone’s verified complaint as opposing evidence to the extent it was based on personal knowledge and stated specific admissible facts.

Malone’s account was that Zarate Ponce and Officer Camacho entered his cell and stripped him of his clothing while the cell door was open. Zarate Ponce and Camacho stated in declarations that they selected the cell randomly, told Malone they would conduct a random cell search, and asked him to submit to an initial unclothed body search. They said Malone agreed and that they stood outside the cell entrance and positioned their bodies to shield him from possible view from the dayroom. Zarate Ponce did not specifically remember whether his body camera was recording, but stated that his regular practice was to turn it off during unclothed body searches and that any recording would have been accidental rather than intentional or malicious.

Eighth Amendment analysis

The Eighth Amendment claim required Malone to show both an objectively serious or harmful deprivation and a sufficiently blameworthy state of mind by the prison official. The court held that Malone did not satisfy either requirement.

First, the court found that the single unclothed body search was not sufficiently serious or harmful. Malone did not allege that Zarate Ponce said or did anything inappropriate during the search, and he did not allege physical injuries. The court acknowledged that the incident may have been humiliating but concluded that the humiliation did not amount to the severe psychological pain required for an Eighth Amendment claim. The presence of female staff or other inmates also did not meet the required standard.

The court separately considered the disputed possibility that a body-worn camera recorded the search. It held that a recording, if one occurred, would not make the deprivation sufficiently serious or harmful because the record contained no facts suggesting that the recording was excessive or otherwise inappropriate.

Second, the court found no facts showing that Zarate Ponce intended to humiliate or harm Malone. The evidence indicated that the cell was selected randomly as part of searches intended to intercept possible contraband and promote the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the institution. The court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find that Zarate Ponce acted with the required culpable state of mind.

Ruling

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Zarate Ponce’s motion for summary judgment. The court stated that a reasonable factfinder could not conclude that the alleged harm was sufficiently serious or that Zarate Ponce had the required state of mind. Because the court resolved the Eighth Amendment claim on those grounds, it did not reach Zarate Ponce’s alternative qualified-immunity argument. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the file.