- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lewis v. Sec'y of Pub. Safety & Corr.
Factual and Procedural Background
Freddie R. Lewis, while incarcerated at Winn Correctional Center (WCC) in Louisiana, worked in the WCC Garment Factory, a facility producing clothing and linens for other correctional institutions. The Garment Factory contained potentially dangerous tools and was adjacent to a sally-port used by supply trucks and civilian drivers who interacted with inmates but were not searched. Inmates working there were subjected to strip searches at least twice daily and additionally when inmate counts did not match. These searches were conducted in a partially secluded room, involved visual inspection without physical contact, and included procedures such as squatting and coughing. Corrections officers and trained instructors conducted the searches, which aimed to prevent contraband and weapons from entering or leaving the facility.
Lewis filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional strip searches violating his Fourth Amendment rights. He also claimed that the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LaDPSC) failed to monitor the private contractor Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) properly and that both failed to comply with their own policies. Lewis sought injunctive relief and punitive damages.
The district court dismissed Lewis's injunctive relief claim as moot after his transfer to a work release program and dismissed claims based on failure to follow state policy, holding that such failures do not constitute federal constitutional violations. The court ordered service on Lewis's remaining Fourth Amendment claim. The complaint against three defendants was dismissed for failure of service. The district court later granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. Lewis appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the strip searches conducted on inmates working in the Garment Factory at WCC violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.
- Whether the failure of LaDPSC and CCA to adhere to their internal policies and regulations constitutes a violation of federal constitutional rights.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing claims against three defendants for failure to serve process properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001) | Transfer of inmate renders claims for injunctive relief moot. | Supported dismissal of Lewis's injunctive relief claim after his transfer from WCC. |
| Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996) | Failure to follow prison policies does not constitute constitutional violation if constitutional minima are met. | Supported dismissal of claims based on defendants' failure to follow internal policies. |
| Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 2011) | Standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. | Guided appellate review of the district court's summary judgment. |
| Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1994) | Fourth Amendment requires searches of prisoners to be reasonable under all circumstances. | Framed the legal standard for assessing reasonableness of the strip searches. |
| McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2013) | Deference to prison officials’ judgment unless policies are unjustified; prison practices valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. | Supported the court's deference to the defendants' search policies as reasonable for institutional security. |
| Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) | Affirmed reasonableness standard for searches in correctional settings. | Quoted to emphasize deference to correctional officials' policies. |
| Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) | Prison practices impinging constitutional rights are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. | Supported the legitimacy of the strip search policies as related to security interests. |
| Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) | Standard for evaluating prison regulations affecting inmates' constitutional rights. | Used to affirm that searches must be reasonably related to penological interests. |
| Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) | State failure to follow procedural regulations does not establish due process violation if constitutional minima are met. | Supported rejection of claims based solely on noncompliance with internal policies. |
| Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989) | Reinforces that failure to follow state procedural rules does not violate due process absent constitutional deprivation. | Bolstered the court's dismissal of claims based on policy violations. |
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) | Summary judgment is appropriate unless there is a genuine dispute of material fact. | Guided the court's assessment of whether discovery failures could preclude summary judgment. |
| Lindsey v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 1996) | Review of dismissal for failure to serve process is abuse of discretion standard. | Supported affirmance of dismissal of claims against unserved defendants. |
| Sys. Signs Supplies v. United States Dep't of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990) | Burden on serving party to prove validity or good cause for failure to serve timely. | Applied to affirm dismissal due to Lewis's failure to properly serve defendants. |
| Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1986) | Failure to follow prison policies does not establish constitutional violation. | Supported dismissal of claims based on noncompliance with internal rules. |
| Brown v. Texas A & M Univ., 804 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. 1986) | Failure to follow procedural regulations does not violate due process if constitutional minima are met. | Reinforced rejection of claims based solely on policy violations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court applied the Fourth Amendment standard requiring that searches of prisoners be reasonable under all circumstances, balancing institutional safety needs against inmates' rights to be free from humiliating or degrading searches. The court deferred to the judgment of correctional officials unless there was substantial evidence that the search policies were unnecessary or unjustified. The affidavits of prison officials demonstrated that the strip searches were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, including preventing contraband from entering via supply trucks and inmates, and preventing inmates from removing items that could be used as weapons.
Lewis failed to provide evidence rebutting this justification. The court also held that internal rules and regulations of LaDPSC and CCA do not themselves create federally protected rights, and failure to follow such policies does not constitute a constitutional violation if constitutional standards are met. Regarding discovery disputes, the court concluded that even if defendants failed to produce certain requested materials, none would have created a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment.
Finally, the court reviewed the dismissal of claims against three defendants for failure to serve process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Because Lewis did not show good cause for the failure to serve properly after the defendants provided full names, the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.
Holding and Implications
The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is AFFIRMED.
The court's decision directly resolves the claims brought by Lewis, upholding the reasonableness of the strip search policies at WCC and affirming procedural dismissals. No new constitutional precedent was established. The ruling confirms that prison search policies reasonably related to security interests satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements and that failure to comply with internal prison policies alone does not constitute a constitutional violation. Additionally, proper service of process remains a strict procedural requirement under Rule 4(m).
PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Circuit Judge
Freddie R. Lewis, Pro se.
John Christopher Guillet, Corkern, Crews, Guillet & Johnson, L.L.C., Natchitoches, LA, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Circuit Judge:
Freddie R. Lewis brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was subjected to unconstitutional strip searches while incarcerated at the Winn Correctional Center (WCC) in Winnfield, Louisiana. The defendants, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LaDPSC), Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the President of CCA, WCC, the former warden of WCC, the current warden of WCC, a number of correctional and security officers, and the former security chief of WCC, moved for summary judgment. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.
IWhile incarcerated at WCC, Lewis worked at the WCC Garment Factory owned and operated by the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The Garment Factory produces clothes and linens available for purchase by other correctional facilities in Louisiana. The building contains sewing machines, cutting tables, needles, scissors, clippers, nails, electrical cords, and other items and machines. The cutting room and the tool room are partially secluded, and inmates are able to check out tools by placing their identification card on the nail from which they took a certain tool. A culinary arts class and a carpentry class for inmates are held in the same building.
The Garment Factory is next to a sally-port, through which supply trucks and civilian drivers enter. Although the drivers interact with inmates while the trucks are unloaded, they are not searched when they enter the sally-port. Trustee inmates, who are permitted to leave the prison and reenter through the sally-port, also interact with the inmates working at the Garment Factory.
The inmates working at the Garment Factory are subject to strip searches at least twice a day, once before they reenter the main prison for lunch and again before returning to the main prison at the end of the day. Inmates are also subject to a strip search if a head count of the inmates at the prison, which occurs several times each day, does not match the total number of inmates assigned to the facility. When the count does not match, every inmate must be quickly returned to his bed for a "bed count."
The strip searches are conducted in a partially secluded room in the Garment Factory in groups of approximately ten inmates. The room has windows next to the entry and exit doors for security reasons. Female corrections officers are not allowed in the search room. After entering the room, inmates are instructed to disrobe and place their clothes on two long, narrow tables in the middle of the room. Corrections officers then search the clothes. The inmates are also instructed to spread their buttocks, lift their genitals, and open their mouths for visual searches. The procedure was altered at some point such that inmates were instructed to squat and cough, rather than spread their buttocks and lift their genitals. Inmates are not physically touched by the officers during this search. After the search, the inmates partially dress in the search room, exit, and complete dressing outside the room. They then walk through a metal detector one at a time. The metal detector sometimes fails to detect small amounts of metal.
Two Louisiana Department of Corrections employees managed the Garment Factory and two WCC correctional officers, Carol Melton and Joshua Clark, provided security during the relevant period. While searches were conducted, Melton would remain in the hallway to ensure inmates did not attempt to re-enter the Garment Factory. The instructors for the Culinary Arts class and the Carpentry class, both male, received annual training on strip search procedures and assisted in the searches. Clark stated in his affidavit that he has personally found contraband during these searches, including marijuana, clothes stolen from the Garment Factory, cell phones, and money. He also stated that metal shanks have been discovered in the Garment Factory. The WCC Warden stated that the metal rods used to hold spools of thread on the Garment Factory sewing machines were found in the main prison, sharpened into shanks.
Lewis brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to strip searches. He also alleged that LaDPSC failed to monitor CCA, the private contractor that runs WCC, adequately and that LaDPSC and CCA both failed to comply with their own rules and regulations. Lewis sought injunctive relief and punitive damages. After his complaint was filed, Lewis was transferred from WCC to participate in a work release program. The district court then denied and dismissed as moot his claim for injunctive relief because he was no longer housed at WCC. It also dismissed Lewis's claims based on the defendants' failure to follow state policy because failure of state officials to follow a particular policy does not give rise to federal constitutional claims. The district court ordered service of process on Lewis's remaining Fourth Amendment claim. Lewis did not appeal this judgment.
See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (determining that an inmate's transfer to a different unit rendered claims for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to environmental conditions at the original unit moot).
See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (recognizing that "[o]ur case law is clear ... that a prison official's failure to follow the prison's own policies, procedures or regulations does not constitute a violation of due process, if constitutional minima are nevertheless met").
The district court subsequently dismissed the complaint against three of the individual defendants because they were not served and did not make a general appearance in the case. The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted that motion. Lewis appealed.
IIWe review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard employed by the district court. "The Fourth Amendment ... requires that ‘searches or seizures conducted on prisoners must be reasonable under all the facts and circumstances in which they are performed.’ " "When reviewing the reasonableness of searches, this court strikes a balance ‘in favor of deference to prison authorities' views of institutional safety requirements against the admittedly legitimate claims of inmates not to be searched in a humiliating and degrading manner.’ " "We ‘defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.’ "
Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011).
Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240, 1244 (5th Cir. 1978) ).
McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 656-57 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Elliott, 38 F.3d at 191 ).
Id. at 657 (quoting Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 322-23, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) ).
Controlling the flow of contraband and ensuring institutional security are legitimate penological objectives. The affidavits of WCC prison officials show that the search policies at issue were aimed at preventing the flow of contraband from the outside truck drivers and others to inmates in the Garment Factory and to the main prison. The search policies were also used to prevent the removal of items from the Garment Factory that could be used as weapons. Lewis has failed to rebut this reasonable justification for the strip and visual body cavity searches and has therefore not shown that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559-62, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ; McCreary, 738 F.3d at 656 ("Prison practices that impinge on prisoners' constitutional rights are valid as long as they are ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ " (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) )).
The LaDPSC and CCA internal rules and regulations do not alone create federally-protected rights and a prison official's failure to follow prison policies or regulations does not establish a violation of a constitutional right. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to these claims.
See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) ; Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251-52 (5th Cir. 1989) ("A state's failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not establish a violation of due process, because ‘constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met.’ " (quoting Brown v. Texas A & M Univ., 804 F.2d 327, 335 (5th Cir. 1986) )).
Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
Lewis raises a variety of discovery issues in his briefing before this court. Lewis contends that the defendants failed to produce discovery material he requested that would establish a material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment. Lewis describes his discovery requests as, among others, requests for documentation of LaDPSC's and CCA's failure to comply with the terms of their contract, records demonstrating that Lewis was incarcerated at LaDPSC, records showing LaDPSC's legal authority to transport Lewis, evidence of authorization from the Louisiana legislature for CCA to operate the Garment Factory with LaDPSC employees, the blueprint of WCC showing that the Garment Factory is part of the WCC compound, and the reports of the strip searches required under prison policy. We conclude that even if the defendants failed to produce this requested material, none of the discovery urged by Lewis could create an issue of material fact precluding summary judgment for the defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ("Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.").
Finally, Lewis appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint against three of the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Our review of this claim is for abuse of discretion. Rule 4(m) requires dismissal if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. After the defendants refused service of process primarily because Lewis failed to include first names on the summonses, the district court ordered defendants to provide the full names of those individuals. The defendants complied. Lewis has not presented any argument asserting good cause for his failure to serve the defendants properly thereafter. The district court's dismissal of the complaint against these three defendants was not an abuse of discretion.
Lindsey v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir. 1996).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Sys. Sign s Supplies v. United States Dep't of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ("When service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of proving its validity or good cause for failure to effect timely service.").
See id. at 1013-14 (noting that "[p]ro se status does not excuse a litigant's complete failure to effect service" and that even though defendants had actual notice, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit).
--------
* * *
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Alert