McCurty v. Madsen

Background

Michael McCurty, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state officials. He named Correctional Officers H. Madsen and Arlene Stephens, Warden Craig Koenig, and Does 1–3. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages.

The court had previously found a legally viable Eighth Amendment claim concerning the alleged sexual harassment and clothed-body searches against Madsen, Stephens, and Koenig. The court had allowed McCurty to amend his claims against Does 1–3 but warned that the case would not proceed against those defendants if he failed to do so timely. He did not file timely amended claims.

Allegations and Motion

McCurty alleged that Madsen and Stephens conducted retaliatory cell searches on July 11 and August 10, 2019. He alleged that during the August 10 search, Madsen pulled down his pants, exposed his buttocks and genitalia to inmates and Stephens, grabbed his buttocks, and placed her hands inside his boxer shorts while squeezing and cupping his penis and scrotum. McCurty also alleged that this type of conduct was prevalent at the facility and that Koenig knew about it through complaints and grievances but failed to discipline staff or control their conduct.

Koenig was the only defendant seeking summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants argued that McCurty could identify no supporting evidence beyond unidentified rumors.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment by turning a routine pat-down into a humiliating and abusive sexual assault. It concluded that the record showed a genuine dispute of material fact about McCurty’s Eighth Amendment claim against Koenig. Accepting McCurty’s allegations as true for purposes of the motion, the court found a factual dispute about whether Koenig violated McCurty’s constitutional rights.

Rulings and Case Status

The court DISMISSED without prejudice all claims against Does 1–3.

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the claims against Koenig.

The court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for a settlement conference and asked that it be included, if possible, in global settlement proceedings with another civil-rights action. All further proceedings were stayed, and the Clerk was directed to administratively close the case until further order. The court stated that if the matter does not settle, the case will be reopened and proceed to trial. The order terminated Docket No. 16.