James McCreary v. Jeffery Richardson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20444
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- On May 13, 2011, McCreary (TDCJ prisoner) was waiting with ~100 Muslim inmates for Jumu’ah; Capt. Richardson confronted him, used abusive language, threatened disciplinary measures, and ordered a strip search.
- McCreary objected on religious grounds (religion prohibits nakedness before females); Richardson conducted the strip search in a hallway in front of female staff, allegedly performed it slowly and for personal gratification, and thereafter prevented McCreary from attending the Jumu’ah service.
- McCreary sued Richardson in his individual capacity under RLUIPA, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and various federal and state statutes; after a Spears hearing, limited discovery was granted and Richardson produced an advisory stating he acted on reasonable-cause belief.
- The magistrate recommended, and the district court adopted, denial of McCreary’s default/compel request, dismissal of injunctive relief (no standing), dismissal of RLUIPA monetary claims, and summary judgment for Richardson based on qualified immunity for § 1983 claims; state claims dismissed without prejudice.
- McCreary appealed, challenging the discovery rulings and the grant of qualified immunity on his constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of default judgment / further discovery | McCreary argued Richardson failed to produce TDCJ strip-search policies and discovery was needed to defeat summary judgment | Richardson produced an advisory and said search was based on his reasonable-cause belief; no further documents were relevant | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; Richardson complied and additional policies were not material to qualified-immunity defense |
| Standing for injunctive relief | McCreary sought injunctive relief to prevent future searches | Richardson no longer worked at Coffield and cannot effect conditions there | Affirmed: no standing for injunctive relief |
| RLUIPA monetary damages | McCreary sought money damages under RLUIPA | Richardson argued individuals are not liable for monetary relief under RLUIPA | Affirmed: RLUIPA does not authorize individual-capacity money damages |
| Fourth Amendment (strip search justification & conduct) | McCreary argued the public, lengthy strip search lacked legitimate penological justification and was humiliating; raised motive/retaliation concerns | Richardson argued he had reasonable cause to search (responding to potential disturbance) and qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established for these facts | Affirmed (majority): qualified immunity applies; reasonable-officials could disagree given circuit precedent; conduct (public and length) not shown to be clearly unlawful. (Concurrence/dissent would reverse on justification dispute.) |
| First Amendment (denial of religious service) | McCreary argued preventing attendance violated religious free exercise | McCreary had other opportunities to practice faith; temporary denial was within penological limits | Affirmed: no unreasonable First Amendment violation |
| Due Process (liberty interest) | McCreary claimed atypical, significant hardship from the search/aftereffects | No showing of an atypical, liberty-creating hardship under Sandin | Affirmed: no protected liberty interest; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (procedure for assessing pro se prisoner pleadings at evidentiary hearing)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (standard for prison searches and deference to prison administrators)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (strip-searches incident to institutional safety upheld in broad circumstances)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity two-prong framework and discretion in sequence)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (limits on defining clearly established law too generally)
- Letcher v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1992) (public strip searches upheld where inmate-created disturbance threatened security)
- Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (deference to prison officials; searches in nonprivate areas can be constitutional)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (due-process liberty interest analysis for prison disciplinary measures)