McCurty v. Soirdia

Background

Michael McCurty, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on April 4, 2019, correctional officer S. Siordia ordered him to undergo a clothed body search, used his elbow against McCurty’s back, touched McCurty’s anal area during the search, handcuffed him, pushed him down stairs, and later ordered him to remove his clothing and perform a strip search. McCurty also alleged that Siordia referred to McCurty’s practice of filing complaints against officers, and claimed that the conduct was retaliation for an earlier prison grievance.

McCurty asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment for sexual harassment and excessive force, and under the First Amendment for retaliation. He requested declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. The court noted that McCurty’s request to proceed without paying the full filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

Screening Standard

Because McCurty sued a government correctional officer while incarcerated, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Sexual-Harassment Claim

The court dismissed McCurty’s Eighth Amendment sexual-harassment claim for failure to state a claim for relief. The court explained that sexual assault, coercion, or harassment can violate the Eighth Amendment, but an isolated, brief touch does not necessarily do so. The court concluded that McCurty’s allegation that Siordia passed his fingers across McCurty’s anal area once during a clothed search, without more than a minimal injury, did not meet the required level of egregious, pervasive, or widespread conduct.

Excessive-Force Claim

The court found that McCurty stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The relevant question is whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. McCurty alleged that Siordia twice drove an elbow into his back during the search and that the conduct caused serious back and thoracic-spine injuries, balance problems, pain, and reduced range of motion, requiring a back brace and physical therapy. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the screening stage.

Retaliation Claim

The court also found that McCurty stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. McCurty alleged that he had filed a prison grievance reporting staff misconduct and unnecessary force, and that Siordia later said, “I heard you like to write up officers—I like to write too.” The court determined that, liberally read, these allegations stated a claim that Siordia took adverse action because of McCurty’s protected grievance activity.

Ruling and Case Status

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment sexual-harassment claim. The Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim and the First Amendment retaliation claim were cognizable and could proceed against Siordia. The clerk was ordered to send Siordia notice of the lawsuit, the amended complaint, and related documents for service. The court also directed Siordia to answer the amended complaint and established procedures for dispositive motions and discovery. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.