Ricky Gipson v. Tim Wilkinson
683 F. App'x 327
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ricky Gipson, a Louisiana prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging routine strip and visual body-cavity searches without probable cause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for all served defendants, finding the searches justified by prison security interests; several unserved defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
- Prison officials submitted affidavits explaining searches targeted contraband flow from outside delivery drivers who interacted with inmates in a prison garment factory.
- Gipson offered no evidence rebutting the officials’ justifications at summary judgment.
- Gipson previously raised related claims (sexual harassment, room conditions, toxic fumes) that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and affirmed on prior appeal; those claims were not relitigated here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether routine strip and visual body-cavity searches violated the Fourth Amendment | Searches were conducted without probable cause and were unconstitutional | Searches were reasonable and related to legitimate penological interests (preventing contraband/weapons) | Affirmed: searches reasonable; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment governs these claims | Gipson asked court to analyze under Eighth/14th Amendment | Defendants relied on Fourth Amendment framework for search challenges | Court applied Fourth Amendment as proper framework and rejected Gipson’s request |
| Whether previously dismissed claims (sexual harassment, room conditions, fumes) could be relitigated | Gipson attempted to raise them again | Defendants asserted they were already dismissed and affirmed on prior appeal | Not before the court; prior dismissal stands |
| Whether district court erred in dismissing unserved defendants without prejudice for failure to timely raise lack-of-service defense | Gipson argued dismissal was erroneous | Defendants’ procedural defense and district court dismissal challenged | Court declined to reach this argument because summary judgment for served defendants disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (controlling contraband is a legitimate penological interest)
- Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard review)
- Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999) (Fourth Amendment is proper framework for prison search claims)
- Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) (procedural posture when summary judgment disposes of case)
- Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2006) (service-defense timing and related procedural issues)