Valerio v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner
1:15-cv-00248
D.N.H.Apr 1, 2016Background
- Dwayne Valerio, a pro se prisoner, alleges unconstitutional strip searches and showering at New Hampshire State Prison during intake on July 6, 2012, and after a large religious event on October 16, 2013.
- At intake he was ordered to disrobe, strip-searched and deloused in a wet cell; surveillance cameras recorded the events and a female officer monitored the feed.
- After the Tailgate Revival, Valerio was strip-searched in the gym in front of 40–50 inmates; he requested a privacy screen and was denied; that search was also monitored on video.
- Valerio asserts Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search), Eighth Amendment (endangerment and humiliation), First Amendment Free Exercise, and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims against numerous corrections officers, supervisors, and officials; he also alleges PREA-related failures to investigate.
- The magistrate judge recommends service only on C.O. John Does #3, #4, #5 and C.O. Bonnie Johnson for Fourth Amendment claims, and on John Does #4 and #5 for the First Amendment Free Exercise claim; all other claims and supervisory and PREA-based claims should be dismissed.
- The court denies injunctive relief for lack of standing and absence of a credible threat of future harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment — unreasonable searches (intake and gym searches) | Valerio says strip searches and shower were conducted without exigency, in view of others and on video, violating privacy | Defendants implicitly contend searches were for security/intake and not unreasonable; some defendants were not directly involved | Fourth Amendment claims survive against C.O. John Does #3, #4, #5 and C.O. Johnson; claims against other named officers dismissed |
| Eighth Amendment — endangerment (risk of sexual assault via procedures) | Procedures created substantial risk of sexual assault/video voyeurism; staff were deliberately indifferent | No facts show a substantial or known risk of assault or deliberate indifference | Dismissed for failure to plead a serious risk and deliberate indifference |
| Eighth Amendment — harassment/humiliation (motivation of searches) | Strip searches were harassing and intended to humiliate | Searches were tied to legitimate security/intake needs, not improper motive | Dismissed for failure to allege facts showing intent to harass or humiliate |
| First Amendment — Free Exercise (religious objection to nudity) | Being fully nude before other men violates Valerio’s sincerely held beliefs; denial of privacy screen substantially burdens religion | Denial was a security measure; not addressed in detail but contested | Free Exercise claim survives as to John Does #4 and #5; service directed on those officers |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Equal Protection | Valerio alleges disparate treatment by being searched in view of others | No allegation that Valerio was treated differently than similarly situated inmates or on improper basis | Dismissed for failure to allege selective treatment or discriminatory intent |
| PREA / failure to investigate or prosecute | Defendants failed to investigate/report/prosecute PREA violations, violating due process | PREA provides no private right of action; no protected interest in prosecution | Dismissed: PREA not privately enforceable and no right to compel prosecution |
| Injunctive relief | Requests institutional and prospective relief to stop practices | Lack of imminent threat or likelihood of future exposure to same conditions | Denied for lack of Article III standing and no irreparable-injury showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (construing pro se pleadings liberally)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: disregard legal conclusions, assess plausibility)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment and standards for cruel and unusual punishment)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (standing for injunctive relief requires a real and immediate threat)
- Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263 (First Circuit on supervisory liability requirements)
- King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (Eighth Amendment claim where strip search plausibly motivated by desire to harass)