782 F.3d 968
8th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Kendrick C. Story, an African-American Arkansas inmate, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over a visual body‑cavity/strip search conducted April 16, 2013, when he returned to Williams Correctional Facility from a prison school at Pine Bluff unit.
- Story alleges officers ordered him to disrobe, lift his genitals, bend over and spread his buttocks; the search occurred in view of other inmates and two security cameras.
- He alleges female officers in the master control room viewed the search via video feed and that Major Foote called him a “monkey” during the search.
- The district court screened and dismissed Story’s pro se complaint and amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Story appealed.
- The majority affirms, concluding Story failed to plead violation of a clearly established Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment right; it also addresses qualified immunity on the face of the complaint.
- A partial concurrence/dissent (Judge Bye) would have reversed the preservice dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim and remanded for the required Bell v. Wolfish balancing test, and would not find qualified immunity appropriate at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the visual body‑cavity/strip search violated the Fourth Amendment | Story: the search was an unreasonable bodily intrusion when he returned from the school | Officers: visual body‑cavity inspections on return to facility are reasonable given security interests | Majority: Allegation of the search alone does not show violation of a clearly established right; claim dismissed |
| Whether female officers viewing via camera during the search made the search unlawful | Story: female viewing (via master control video) violated privacy and sex‑sensitivity norms | Officers: searches by male officers were sex‑appropriate; camera monitoring by females is permitted for security | Majority: Not clearly established that such monitoring by female staff violated the Fourth Amendment; reasonable under precedent |
| Whether conducting the search in view of other inmates rendered it unconstitutional | Story: exposure to other inmates made the search humiliating and unreasonable | Officers: institutional security can justify limited public view; no less invasive, equally secure alternative alleged | Majority: Presence of other inmates did not allege violation of a clearly established right |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and whether court may raise it sua sponte at preservice dismissal | Story: defendants violated clearly established law and misconduct (racial slur, unsanitary/humiliating method) defeats immunity | Officers: (did not brief on appeal) institutional security justifies search; qualified immunity applies | Majority: Sua sponte consideration of qualified immunity appropriate at screening; officers entitled to immunity because alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Concurrence: court should not sua sponte raise immunity and immunity not established on complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (framework for prison search reasonableness; balancing test)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (limits on privacy in prison cells)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Center, 490 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007) (strip searches should be by same sex and not degrading)
- Goff v. Nix, 803 F.2d 358 (8th Cir. 1986) (permissibility of body‑cavity searches on entry/exit)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (detention searches may require lifting genitals/coughing; security interests)
- Levine v. Roebuck, 550 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2008) (inmates entitled to Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable body searches)
- Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1990) (female guards intermittently observing male inmates reasonable for security)
- Franklin v. Lockhart, 883 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1989) (use of cameras and searches reasonable)