(PC) Witkin v. Rosario
2:20-cv-00126
E.D. Cal.Apr 2, 2020Background
- Pro se prisoner Michael Aaron Witkin filed a § 1983 suit against correctional officers D. Rosario and S. Hanlon alleging a warrantless cell search and a subsequent strip search, plus an equal protection claim that other inmates’ cells were not searched.
- Plaintiff seeks monetary damages; his original verified complaint is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 8.
- The court reviewed whether the complaint stated Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment claims and whether amendment could cure pleading defects.
- The court held that prisoners have no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their cells, so the warrantless cell-search claim is meritless as a matter of law.
- The strip-search claim may be actionable if alleged to be vindictive, excessive, or harassing, but plaintiff’s complaint lacked factual detail; the equal-protection claim was too vague as pleaded.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend; plaintiff was given 30 days to file a first amended complaint and warned that some defects are incurable and that failure to comply could lead to dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless cell search (Fourth Amendment) | Warrantless search of cell violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights | Prisoners have diminished privacy; cell searches for security are lawful (controlling law) | Dismissed — prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right to privacy in cells (claim meritless as matter of law) |
| Strip search constitutionality (Fourth Amendment) | Strip search violated bodily privacy and Fourth Amendment | Strip searches of prisoners generally permissible for safety unless vindictive/excessive/harassing | Not sustained on current facts — complaint lacks particulars; leave to amend to plead vindictiveness/excess or harassment |
| Equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment) | Singled out: his cell searched while similarly situated inmates’ cells were not | Plaintiff failed to plead why he was treated differently or any protected class/basis for discrimination | Dismissed as pleaded — claim too vague; leave to amend to allege specific discriminatory basis or facts |
| Pleading sufficiency / remedy (Rule 8; § 1915A) | Verified complaint suffices to proceed | Complaint must give particularized facts showing each defendant’s conduct and constitutional deprivation | Dismissed with leave to amend; 30 days to file amended complaint; warned amendment supersedes prior pleading and some defects are incurable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (prisoners lack Fourth Amendment privacy in cells)
- Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1988) (prison strip searches permissible unless vindictive, excessive, or harassing)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend required before dismissing pro se civil rights complaint)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss for failure to comply with orders; procedure for dismissal)
- Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 8 compliance and dismissal with prejudice for inadequate pleadings)
- May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff must plead specific facts linking each defendant to alleged deprivation)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (requirement of affirmative link between defendant’s actions and constitutional violation)