Salem v. Michigan Department of Corrections
643 F. App'x 526
6th Cir.2016Background
- WHV policy required returning inmates to perform a two-part strip search: bend-and-spread plus sitting on a sanitary-paper-lined chair and spreading the labia for inspection; the chair search was implemented facility-wide in 2009 by Warden Millicent Warren.
- Many inmates filed grievances in 2010–2011, complaining the chair searches occurred in full view of others and sometimes without sanitary covers or disinfectant.
- Warren conducted an internal review and on December 16, 2011, ordered the chair portion discontinued and revised policy to require reasonable suspicion for vaginal searches, while retaining bend-and-spread searches.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 class action (since October 2010) seeking damages and prospective injunctive relief, alleging the chair searches were invasive, unsanitary, and conducted publicly.
- The district court dismissed Eleventh Amendment claims for monetary relief against the state and officials in official capacity, dismissed other claims except the Fourth Amendment claim against Warren, denied Warren qualified immunity for non-private searches, and denied summary judgment on injunctive relief as not moot.
- Defendants appealed: collateral appeal as to denial of qualified immunity; also appealed denial of mootness for the injunctive-relief claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warren violated the Fourth Amendment by authorizing chair-based searches conducted in view of other inmates | Chair searches forced inmates to spread labia on unsanitary chairs and were done in full view, making them unreasonable | Warren contends searches were justified to detect contraband and that she is entitled to qualified immunity | Denied qualified immunity: searches conducted in view of others (and on unsanitary chairs) violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights |
| Whether suspicionless searches require individualized suspicion | Plaintiffs argue searches lacked individualized suspicion | Warren argues searches were reasonable without suspicion to detect contraband | Rejected plaintiff's argument: suspicionless visual body-cavity searches are permissible under controlling precedent |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time of Warren's actions | Plaintiffs: right not to be strip-searched in full view was already clearly established by 2007 | Warren: leading decisions postdate the challenged searches so the right wasn’t clearly established | Held clearly established: prior authority put Warren on notice (Stoudemire/Farmer line) |
| Whether this court can hear the interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary judgment on injunctive relief (mootness) | Plaintiffs: injunction claim not moot because chair searches continued | Defendants: claim moot under PLRA; on appeal they argue Eleventh Amendment bars the injunctive claim | Court dismissed this portion for lack of jurisdiction because Defendants did not raise Eleventh Amendment below and thus had no collateral-order basis to appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 1999) (qualified-immunity interlocutory appeal standards)
- Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, 432 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified-immunity analysis principles)
- Williams v. City of Cleveland, 771 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2014) (searches in view of others can be unreasonable)
- Stoudemire v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 705 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2013) (suspicionless strip searches permissible generally; manner-of-search limits)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (standard for prison search reasonableness)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (consideration of less intrusive alternatives in prison rules)
- Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002) (recognition of right against humiliating public strip searches)
- P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (collateral-order doctrine for Eleventh Amendment appeals)
- Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional limits on interlocutory appeals)