Duckett v. Garcia

Background

Jasmine Duckett, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer P. Garcia-Cortes. The court previously found that the complaint stated a valid Fourth Amendment claim based on an allegedly unreasonable body search.

On December 24, 2021, officers responded after hearing sounds of a physical scuffle. The opinion states that Duckett did not comply with repeated orders to lie face down and instead took an aggressive stance. Garcia-Cortes used pepper spray, handcuffed Duckett after she complied, and performed a clothed search. At a gymnasium holding cell, Garcia-Cortes removed the handcuffs and conducted an unclothed body search before a medical evaluation. The search required Duckett to remove and hand over her clothing, while the officer visually inspected her body and instructed her to squat and cough. The officer stated that he did not touch Duckett, and another officer stood nearby.

Duckett alleged that she showed Garcia-Cortes a transgender access card identifying her gender identity as female and listing a preference for a female searcher. She said he disregarded the card and ordered her to remove her bra. She claimed that she complied because of force and fear. Garcia-Cortes and the other officer stated that Duckett did not tell them she wanted a female officer, did not tell them that a female search preference had been approved, and did not show them the card. Duckett did not oppose the summary-judgment motion.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party must identify evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in that party’s favor.

Fourth Amendment claim

The Fourth Amendment protects bodily privacy in prisons, but prisons may conduct strip searches and body-cavity searches when they are conducted reasonably. The court applied the factors from Bell v. Wolfish and related cases: the scope of the intrusion, the way the search was conducted, the justification for it, and the place where it occurred. The court also considered whether the search was reasonably related to legitimate prison-security interests.

The court held that the undisputed facts showed no Fourth Amendment violation. It emphasized that the search was visual only; Garcia-Cortes did not touch Duckett; Duckett remained inside the holding cell while the officer remained outside; the search complied with the department policy in effect at the time; only two officers were present; the second officer stood to the side to provide privacy; the search followed Duckett’s aggressive and noncompliant conduct; and the search occurred in a holding cell where no other inmates were present. The court concluded that the search was reasonably related to maintaining prison safety and security. It distinguished the type of cross-gender search that the Ninth Circuit had held unreasonable as a matter of law because that search involved touching the inmate’s genitalia and searching inside the anus.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct occurred. A plaintiff must show both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established.

The court held that Garcia-Cortes was entitled to qualified immunity as an alternative basis for judgment. It stated that no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent had clearly established, by December 24, 2021, that a visual unclothed body search of a transgender inmate in circumstances like these violated the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that two later district-court decisions reached different conclusions about related searches and were not binding precedent. Because the law did not put every reasonable officer on notice that this search was unlawful, the court concluded that any mistake by Garcia-Cortes about the legality of the search was reasonable.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Defendant P. Garcia-Cortes’s motion for summary judgment. It DISMISSED the Fourth Amendment claim against him with prejudice and stated that the order terminated Docket No. 24.