Perez v. Binkele

Background

Matthew R. Perez, who was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining defendants were correctional lieutenant Moore and correctional officers Salgado, Franco, and Peffley. They worked in the prison’s Investigative Services Unit.

During a July 31, 2016 contact visit, Perez’s girlfriend passed a capsule-shaped object from her mouth to Perez’s mouth. Officers saw the transfer, and surveillance video recorded it. The girlfriend consented to a search and surrendered a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. Perez was placed on contraband surveillance watch, a prison procedure involving constant visual observation and restraints while officials wait for an inmate to produce suspected contraband.

Perez remained on the watch from July 31 through August 6, 2016. The cell lights stayed on continuously, and the lights could not be dimmed. Perez did not complain to the defendants about the lighting. Officials stated that continuous lighting was needed to monitor whether he tried to hide or dispose of the contraband and to detect medical emergencies.

Officials later obtained a search warrant. At Natividad Medical Center, medical staff performed an X-ray and CT scan, which showed five foreign objects in Perez’s anal cavity. According to Perez’s evidence, medical staff administered large amounts of laxative and later an enema, while correctional officers helped or directed aspects of the process. Perez said the enema caused bleeding. He later produced five bindles containing methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and money.

Claims and legal standard

The remaining claims alleged that the defendants violated:

- the Eighth Amendment by subjecting Perez to continuous lighting during the six-day contraband watch; and - the Fourth Amendment by taking steps at the hospital to make the suspected contraband leave his body.

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At this stage, the court must view disputed evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor and may not decide witness credibility.

The defendants also asserted qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court analyzed whether the manner of the hospital search was unreasonable. For an intrusive body search, the court considered the potential danger to the person’s health and safety, the intrusion on privacy and bodily integrity, and the government’s interest in accurately determining whether contraband was present. The court also treated the search warrant, the prison setting, and the danger posed by drugs in prison as important considerations.

The court found little evidence that the X-rays, CT scan, laxatives, or enema generally threatened Perez’s health or safety. Although Perez presented evidence that the nurse’s method of administering the enema caused bleeding, he did not show that the correctional defendants controlled that method or that enemas generally posed a health danger. The court recognized that the intrusion on Perez’s privacy and bodily integrity was significant, but found it less extreme than the procedure in a case involving forceps and an invasive medical search.

The court also emphasized that officials had tried less intrusive methods for several days, Perez had taken steps that appeared intended to delay release of the suspected contraband, and officials had obtained a warrant specifically authorizing a medically approved body-cavity search. On that record, the court concluded that the defendants’ conduct did not violate a constitutional right. It further held that, even if a jury could find the search unconstitutional, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Perez had not identified a comparable case clearly establishing that the warrant-supported search was unlawful.

The defendants argued that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred Perez’s Fourth Amendment claim because he was convicted of possessing controlled substances in prison. The court rejected that argument. Perez’s conviction followed a no-contest plea rather than a trial, and the defendants did not show that the drugs were introduced as evidence when he entered that plea. The court therefore held that the Heck rule did not bar the claim.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court held that no reasonable jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation based on the continuous lighting during Perez’s contraband watch. The court distinguished cases involving constant lighting for much longer periods and evidence of severe sleep deprivation or other serious physical and mental effects. Here, Perez’s stay lasted six days, the lighting served the specific purpose of continuously monitoring an inmate who had been observed ingesting contraband, and the lighting also helped officers detect a medical emergency.

The court noted that the law was unsettled about how a legitimate prison-security purpose affects an Eighth Amendment challenge to continuous lighting during contraband watch. The court concluded that existing cases did not clearly establish that officials could not keep the lights on continuously in these circumstances. Thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity even assuming that the lighting might have violated the Eighth Amendment.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It entered judgment for the defendants on Perez’s claims and directed the clerk to close the file.