Marshall King v. Robert McCarty
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5008
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- King, a convicted prisoner, was strip-searched at a county jail and required to change into a jumpsuit described by him as see-through; defendants say it was "less than opaque." Guards allegedly refused undergarments and mocked his complaints.
- King was shackled and transported to a state intake facility, remained under surveillance, and was strip-searched again on arrival; inmates from other jails were not similarly attired.
- King filed grievances only after transfer because he lacked writing materials; his letters to the county jail requesting grievance forms went unanswered.
- District court allowed a Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search) claim to proceed but dismissed an Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) claim and later granted summary judgment to defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on exhaustion and reversed dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim; it held the Fourth Amendment claim failed as a matter of law for a convicted prisoner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of administrative remedies under PLRA §1997e(a) | King: could not exhaust because transfer made jail grievance procedure effectively unavailable and he lacked timely access to forms/writing materials | Defendants: King failed to use jail grievance process; superintendent affidavit says any letter would have been given to grievance officer | Remedy was not available to King; defendants failed to meet summary judgment burden and exhaustion does not bar suit |
| Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) | King: compelled prolonged semi-nudity in a (allegedly) see-through jumpsuit was intended to humiliate and caused psychological pain without legitimate penological purpose | Defendants: jumpsuit is routine policy necessary for security during transfer; applied to all transferees | Reversed dismissal — King plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment claim; may proceed past pleadings |
| Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search) | King: prolonged visual exposure in jumpsuit constituted an unreasonable search even if not touched | Defendants: prison officials entitled to deference; Hudson and related precedent limit Fourth Amendment protection for prisoners | Dismissed on merits — convicted prisoners do not get Fourth Amendment protection for this kind of visual strip-search; claim not viable |
| Use of summary judgment standard | King: factual disputes (informal complaints, mailing request, five‑day rule impracticability) preclude summary judgment on exhaustion | Defendants: superintendent affidavit shows procedure would have been available/accepted | Defendants did not carry summary judgment burden; court erred in resolving factual disputes for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment claim viable where searches were alleged to be harassing and humiliating)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA exhaustion requires compliance with prison procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion requirement in prisoner suits explained)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Fourth Amendment has limited applicability in prisons; no reasonable expectation of privacy in cells)
- Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009) (strip-searches can violate Eighth Amendment if intended to humiliate)
- Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) (guards’ refusal to provide required grievance form can render remedy unavailable)
- Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (prison officials may not exploit exhaustion requirement by creating impossible procedural hurdles)