Edwards v. Mora

Background

Walter Edwards, a prisoner representing himself, sued Correctional Officers Stephens, Madsen, Daguio, Mora, and Bramers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Stephens painfully grabbed his genitalia during a patdown search, that Madsen failed to intervene, that Daguio and Madsen conducted a humiliating unclothed search, and that Mora and Bramers searched his cell and confiscated property in retaliation for his threat to file a grievance.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact important to the claim. Their motion addressed Edwards’s Eighth Amendment claims against Madsen, his Fourth Amendment claims against Madsen and Daguio, and his First Amendment retaliation claims against Mora and Bramers. Edwards separately moved to compel production of his entire deposition transcript.

Motion to Compel

The court denied Edwards’s motion to compel. It explained that the court reporter who recorded the deposition retained the transcript and had to provide it to a party or deponent when paid reasonable charges. The court found no authority allowing it to require defendants or the court to provide the transcript at no cost, including for a prisoner representing himself. The court also noted that it had not needed the deposition transcript when deciding the summary-judgment motion.

Eighth Amendment Claims Against Madsen

The court granted summary judgment to Madsen on Edwards’s Eighth Amendment claims. For the deliberate-indifference claim, the court concluded that the competent evidence did not show Madsen knew in advance that Stephens would conduct the alleged improper search or had an opportunity to intervene. The court relied on Edwards’s sworn statements that Stephens stopped grabbing his genitalia after Edwards objected and then moved to other conduct.

The court also granted summary judgment to Madsen on the excessive-force claim. Edwards did not allege that Madsen touched him or applied force. The court further concluded that Edwards’s own sworn statements showed Madsen learned of Stephens’s conduct only after it had ended, leaving no opportunity for Madsen to intervene. The excessive-force claim against Stephens remained pending.

Fourth Amendment Unclothed-Search Claims

The court did not grant summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims to the extent Edwards sought equitable relief, such as an order or declaration. The court held that the fact that Madsen, a female officer, may have observed the unclothed search was not by itself a constitutional violation because Edwards did not allege that Madsen touched him and the search occurred in a private bathroom area without other inmates or staff present.

However, the court found a genuine factual dispute about whether the search was objectively justified. Madsen said Edwards appeared confrontational and agitated, leading her to suspect he possessed contraband. Edwards said he complied with the patdown and protested only Stephens’s conduct. Because the justification depended on disputed facts, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the equitable-relief portion of this claim.

The court did grant summary judgment on any damages request arising from the unclothed search. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), a prisoner cannot bring a federal civil action for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or a sexual act. The court found that Edwards alleged neither physical harm nor a sexual act from the unclothed search.

First Amendment Retaliation Claims

The court did not grant summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claims against Mora and Bramers to the extent Edwards sought equitable relief. Edwards provided evidence that Stephens instructed them to search his cell because he threatened to file a grievance. The defendants said the search was random and that they lacked knowledge of the threat. The court found a factual dispute about whether the search was random or retaliatory and whether Mora and Bramers knew of a retaliatory purpose.

The court did grant summary judgment on Edwards’s request for damages for the alleged retaliation because he alleged no physical injury and no sexual act resulting from the search.

Disposition and Remaining Claims

The order’s title describes the defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion as granted in part and denied in part. In the conclusion, the court states that the motion was granted in part and specifies that Madsen received judgment on Edwards’s Eighth Amendment claims and that the defendants received summary judgment on the First and Fourth Amendment claims to the extent Edwards sought damages.

The motion to compel was denied. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings. The court stated that the remaining claims included Edwards’s Eighth Amendment claims for damages and equitable relief against Stephens, First Amendment claims for equitable relief concerning the alleged retaliation, and Fourth Amendment claims for equitable relief concerning the unclothed search.