By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Prison staff videorecording a strip search does not violate the Eighth Amendment, according to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, the Department of Corrections argued in a bid to end a strip-search related lawsuit filed by an inmate.
The department filed the motion for summary judgment in Parker v. Corrections (USEDM Docket No. 22-12891) on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The case involves an inmate currently housed at the Macomb Correctional Facility, who alleged cruel and unusual punishment and conditions of confinement violations against Corrections and several of its officers.
The bulk of the plaintiff’s claims surround the dates of May through July 2022, when he claims he was strip searched in a room that had a camera, including one incident where the camera on and running. He also claimed one of the corrections officers named in the complaint initiated one of the searches in an unsafe and unprofessional environment.
Each of the incidents followed in-person visits.
When the plaintiff refused strip searches, the plaintiff said the corrections officers treated him in a degrading way, warning that he could either strip in front of the camera or do so “in the hole,” a reference to a form of solitary confinement.
“These strip searches in the presence of a camera were extremely embarrassing, humiliating, and are in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights,” the initial complaint argued.
The plaintiff is suing each defendant in their official and individual capacities with a request of $10,000 in punitive damages, and $50,000 in compensatory damages against each defendant.
Corrections, in its motion for summary judgment filed Monday, argued the plaintiff’s claims didn’t rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, and that the department and its employees were entitled to qualified immunity. It argued the latter as a rational trier of fact would not be able to conclude the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.
“The defendants did not subject Parker to cruel and unusual punishment of any kind, at any time, nor violate his rights through the strip searches in the designated room at MRF,” Corrections argued. “The camera in the strip search room is fixed, does not rotate, only views the officers on the adjacent wall from where prisoners are being unclothed and does not view prisoners in a state of undress.”
The department said the officers were following MDOC policy directives when preforming the search, including one that says, “all prisoners shall be subject to a strip search upon return from an off-site detail (e.g. writ, gate pass assignment, hospital) and after each contact visit.”
The department also argued the plaintiff could not prove that the cameras were recording, or if the cameras were even operational.
Even if the cameras were operational, Corrections argued that recording a strip search does not amount to a constitutional violation, per various pieces of 6th Circuit precedent and recent rulings in the Eastern District.
“Courts within the 6th Circuit have held that no Fourth or Eighth Amendment violation occurs when prison staff videorecord an inmate strip search. Additionally, within the Eastern District, there recently was an order accepting and adopting a report and recommendation to dismiss a case in which another inmate filed an almost identical case, alleging the warden at MRF allowed prison staff to videorecord prisoner strip searches in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” the motion argued. “The district court judge agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment allegations should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Further, the McGibbon decision cited Hubbert and determined, ‘the law is clear that the mere act of videorecording a strip search does not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights.’”
In the present case, Corrections argued that the plaintiff has not alleged anything other than the fact that Corrections conducted a strip search in a room with a camera.
The immunity argument also included the fact that the plaintiff’s claims were against state actors in their official capacity, and were ultimately claims against the state. That gave the state’s agents in the case sovereign immunity.
The plaintiff is also seeking declaratory relief, and preliminary and permanent injunctions, all which Corrections asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds to throw out.
“Without proving a constitutional violation, Parker’s request for injunctive and declaratory relief should be denied, and this motion for summary judgment should be granted,” the motion said.
Court records show that Edmunds has yet to rule on the matter.
Gongwer News Service
Prison staff videorecording a strip search does not violate the Eighth Amendment, according to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, the Department of Corrections argued in a bid to end a strip-search related lawsuit filed by an inmate.
The department filed the motion for summary judgment in Parker v. Corrections (USEDM Docket No. 22-12891) on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The case involves an inmate currently housed at the Macomb Correctional Facility, who alleged cruel and unusual punishment and conditions of confinement violations against Corrections and several of its officers.
The bulk of the plaintiff’s claims surround the dates of May through July 2022, when he claims he was strip searched in a room that had a camera, including one incident where the camera on and running. He also claimed one of the corrections officers named in the complaint initiated one of the searches in an unsafe and unprofessional environment.
Each of the incidents followed in-person visits.
When the plaintiff refused strip searches, the plaintiff said the corrections officers treated him in a degrading way, warning that he could either strip in front of the camera or do so “in the hole,” a reference to a form of solitary confinement.
“These strip searches in the presence of a camera were extremely embarrassing, humiliating, and are in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights,” the initial complaint argued.
The plaintiff is suing each defendant in their official and individual capacities with a request of $10,000 in punitive damages, and $50,000 in compensatory damages against each defendant.
Corrections, in its motion for summary judgment filed Monday, argued the plaintiff’s claims didn’t rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, and that the department and its employees were entitled to qualified immunity. It argued the latter as a rational trier of fact would not be able to conclude the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.
“The defendants did not subject Parker to cruel and unusual punishment of any kind, at any time, nor violate his rights through the strip searches in the designated room at MRF,” Corrections argued. “The camera in the strip search room is fixed, does not rotate, only views the officers on the adjacent wall from where prisoners are being unclothed and does not view prisoners in a state of undress.”
The department said the officers were following MDOC policy directives when preforming the search, including one that says, “all prisoners shall be subject to a strip search upon return from an off-site detail (e.g. writ, gate pass assignment, hospital) and after each contact visit.”
The department also argued the plaintiff could not prove that the cameras were recording, or if the cameras were even operational.
Even if the cameras were operational, Corrections argued that recording a strip search does not amount to a constitutional violation, per various pieces of 6th Circuit precedent and recent rulings in the Eastern District.
“Courts within the 6th Circuit have held that no Fourth or Eighth Amendment violation occurs when prison staff videorecord an inmate strip search. Additionally, within the Eastern District, there recently was an order accepting and adopting a report and recommendation to dismiss a case in which another inmate filed an almost identical case, alleging the warden at MRF allowed prison staff to videorecord prisoner strip searches in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” the motion argued. “The district court judge agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment allegations should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Further, the McGibbon decision cited Hubbert and determined, ‘the law is clear that the mere act of videorecording a strip search does not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights.’”
In the present case, Corrections argued that the plaintiff has not alleged anything other than the fact that Corrections conducted a strip search in a room with a camera.
The immunity argument also included the fact that the plaintiff’s claims were against state actors in their official capacity, and were ultimately claims against the state. That gave the state’s agents in the case sovereign immunity.
The plaintiff is also seeking declaratory relief, and preliminary and permanent injunctions, all which Corrections asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds to throw out.
“Without proving a constitutional violation, Parker’s request for injunctive and declaratory relief should be denied, and this motion for summary judgment should be granted,” the motion said.
Court records show that Edmunds has yet to rule on the matter.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
