(PC) Kirkelie v. Thissell
1:15-cv-00735
E.D. Cal.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jonathan Kirkelie, a federal prisoner, alleges that Officer Thissell repeatedly performed sexually abusive pat-downs (including cupping his genitals), made sexual comments, and inflicted pain and humiliation between September 2014 and April 2015. Several inmates and Officer Alvarez are alleged witnesses.
- Plaintiff filed PREA and administrative complaints; he alleges delays, lost or late responses (BP-9, BP-10), and pressure to falsify dates for remedy filings. He also alleges retaliation and a subsequent unauthorized locker search removing his notes.
- Plaintiff sought psychological help; the prison psychologist (Madttavi) is alleged to have minimized the report, discarded a written pros/cons list, and declined to take further protective measures.
- Plaintiff names multiple officials (Thissell, Smith, Madttavi, Masterson, Knoll, Gill, Roupe, Conners, Zuniga, and several unnamed Doe defendants) and asserts Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims, failure-to-protect, supervisory liability, and conspiracy claims under Bivens.
- The magistrate judge previously screened the second amended complaint, concluding cognizable Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against Thissell and Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Smith, Madttavi, Masterson, Knoll, and Does 1–2; claims against other named defendants and supervisory/conspiracy theories were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The court noted the earlier procedural issue in light of Williams v. King concerning consent to magistrate jurisdiction, but proceeded to recommend dismissal of noncognizable claims and defendants and to allow the identified claims to proceed for screening purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment: unreasonable/search sexual touching | Thissell’s pat-downs were sexually motivated, intrusive, and unreasonable | Search was routine/security measure | Court: Allegations plausibly state a Fourth Amendment claim against Thissell |
| Eighth Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment/sexual abuse | Repeated sexual touching and harassment inflicted pain and humiliation | Conduct was not sufficiently serious or unrelated to penological needs | Court: Allegations plausibly state an Eighth Amendment claim against Thissell |
| Failure to protect under Eighth Amendment | Smith, Madttavi, Masterson, Knoll, Does 1–2 knew of risk and failed to protect or remove Thissell | Officials took administrative steps or lacked knowledge/responsibility | Court: Claims against Smith, Madttavi, Masterson, Knoll, Does 1–2 are cognizable for failure to protect |
| Supervisory liability / Conspiracy (Bivens) | Supervisors and other staff conspired or are liable for failing to supervise/act | No facts showing personal participation, agreement, or nonconclusory supervisory culpability | Court: Dismissed supervisory and conspiracy claims and claims against Gill, Roupe, Conners, Zuniga, and Does 3–10 for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard, liability requires personal participation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing in corrections)
- Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference / failure to protect)
- Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (intrusive searches and psychological harm may violate Eighth Amendment)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (protection from repetitive/harassing searches and sexual abuse)
- Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321 (digital rectal searches and limits on intrusive searches)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (not every nonconsensual touch is an Eighth Amendment violation; context matters)
- Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614 (verbal insults alone generally do not violate Eighth Amendment)