Freddie Lewis v. Public Safety & Corrections, et a
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16915
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Freddie R. Lewis, incarcerated at Winn Correctional Center (WCC) and working in the prison Garment Factory, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming unconstitutional strip searches.
- Garment Factory workers underwent group, visual strip searches at least twice daily and after count discrepancies; searches occurred in a partially secluded room, were visual only (no touching), and sometimes required squat-and-cough; clothes were searched separately and inmates passed through a metal detector afterward.
- Prison officials justified searches by security concerns: outside truck drivers and trustee inmates had contact with factory workers, contraband and improvised weapons (including sharpened thread spindles) had been found, and officers reported finding contraband in searches.
- Lewis sought injunctive relief and punitive damages; injunctive claims became moot after his transfer, and claims premised solely on failure to follow state policies were dismissed as not constitutionally cognizable.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; dismissal of three unserved defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether routine group strip/visual body-cavity searches at the Garment Factory violated the Fourth Amendment | Lewis: searches were humiliating and unreasonable, violating Fourth Amendment rights | Defendants: searches were reasonable and necessary for penological/security objectives to prevent contraband and weapons | Court: searches reasonable given security justification; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether failure to follow LaDPSC/CCA internal policies creates a federal constitutional claim | Lewis: defendants’ noncompliance with their own rules establishes constitutional violations | Defendants: internal policies do not create federal rights; policy violations alone don’t equal constitutional violations | Court: policy noncompliance does not by itself create a constitutional claim; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether defendants’ failure to produce requested discovery precluded summary judgment | Lewis: missing documents would create genuine disputes of material fact | Defendants: even with requested material, no evidence would create a triable issue on constitutionality | Court: requested discovery would not have created a material factual dispute; summary judgment proper |
| Whether dismissal of three unserved defendants under Rule 4(m) was improper | Lewis: (no good-cause argument presented) | Defendants/District Court: service was not timely and plaintiff failed to show good cause; dismissal appropriate | Court: dismissal under Rule 4(m) was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (search reasonableness deference to prison officials)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (prison searches valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison practice validity tested by relation to penological objectives)
- McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651 (deference to correctional judgments on search procedures)
- Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91 (failure to follow prison policy not a constitutional violation)
- Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (transfer moots injunctive relief claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: material facts must affect outcome)
- Sys. Sign Supplies v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011 (Rule 4(m) dismissal; pro se status does not excuse failure to serve)