Rashid v. BURKS
1:12-cv-00140
M.D. Ga.Jan 30, 2013Background
- Rashid, a prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the Middle District of Georgia arising from a June 16, 2012 strip-search incident at Calhoun State Prison.
- Defendants named include Lt. Jada Burks, Sgt. Jane Jackson, and Sgt. Joe Tennielle; Colonel Jane Roberts; plus Officer Samantha Richardson and Deputy Warden Christine Cross.
- Rashid sought in forma pauperis status; the court granted it and waived the initial filing fee, directing later payment of the full fee in installments.
- Richardson and Cross were later dismissed from the action for lack of connection to the alleged privacy violation.
- The court found a colorable privacy claim against Burks, Jackson, Tennielle, and Roberts and ordered service on those four defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson and Cross can be held liable for the privacy violation | Richardson/Cross had role or awareness of the incident | No direct participation or supervisory liability connecting them to the violation | Dismissed claims against Richardson and Cross |
| Whether the remaining defendants state a colorable bodily privacy claim | Defendants violated the plaintiff's right to bodily privacy during strip searches | Allegations insufficient to establish a constitutional violation against these individuals | Colorable privacy claim stated against Burks, Jackson, Tennielle, and Roberts; service ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993) (frivolous/insufficient factual support standards for § 1915A)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must plead enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (threadbare recitals of the elements are insufficient)
- Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 1999) (supervisory liability requires more than vicarious responsibility)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1993) (prisoner bodily privacy rights are case-by-case; involuntary exposure can be demeaning)
- Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (pleading requirements; linking acts to legal wrong)
- Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2008) (notice pleading standards; minimal particularity necessary)