Brown v. Lieutenant Bass

Background

Michael Larue Brown, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer against prison officials. The court had previously dismissed the action because Brown did not file his complaint using the email procedures required by General Order No. 76. Brown later filed the complaint by email in compliance with that order.

Brown alleges that on October 8, 2022, Lieutenant Bass, Sergeant Taylor, and Sergeant Simpson orchestrated an unclothed body search. According to the complaint, Taylor directed Brown and other prisoners to fully disrobe, expose and move parts of their bodies, and then redress. Brown requested that the search occur indoors rather than in public, but Bass and Taylor refused. Brown alleges that the search occurred in view of a staff entry gate, that three nurses watched him, and that 15 other correctional officers also viewed the search.

Brown also alleges that prison staff retaliated against him for filing this lawsuit. He claims that guards under Bass’s direction harassed and intimidated him and issued false Rules Violation Reports. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening and claims

Because Brown is a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that Brown stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment. Section 1983 provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority violates rights protected by federal law. Applying Ninth Circuit authority concerning cross-gender searches and viewing of unclothed prisoners, the court determined that the alleged scope and manner of the one-time public search were sufficient to state a plausible claim. The court specifically noted Brown’s allegations that female prison staff viewed him fully unclothed, without obstruction, from close range, and without a legitimate reason.

The court also concluded that Brown stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Bass. The alleged retaliation consisted of adverse action taken because Brown engaged in protected conduct, allegedly filing this lawsuit, and the court found the claim sufficient to proceed under the governing retaliation standard.

Disposition and next steps

The court ordered the Clerk to vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. It found that Brown had stated a cognizable section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against Bass, Simpson, and Taylor, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Bass. The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service procedures for defendants who do not waive service.

The order sets deadlines for answers, dispositive motions, opposition briefs, and replies, and permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also states that Brown’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee will be decided by a separate order. The order does not decide whether Brown will ultimately prevail on either claim. The judge’s name is not legible in the provided signature block.