210 F. Supp. 3d 897
N.D. Ohio2016Background
- Plaintiff Tynisa Williams, on behalf of a putative class of persons detained at Cleveland’s House of Correction (Dec. 26, 2007–Apr. 14, 2010), alleges the jail had a policy of blanket strip-searching and "hose method" delousing (spraying pediculicide from a pressurized canister over naked detainees, including face/genitals).
- Williams alleges she was strip-searched and deloused in October 2009 in the presence of other detainees, without privacy partitions and without individualized suspicion; she challenges both the method of delousing and group strip searches under § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and sought injunctive relief and damages.
- The City admits it used the physical delousing policy until April 14, 2010 and has since shifted to less intrusive procedures for suspected lice cases; some jail officials indicated they might reinstate the old practice.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed earlier dismissal, holding the complaint plausibly alleged Fourth Amendment violations based on the particular manner of delousing and group searches, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment this Court held the "hose method" delousing and group strip searches without privacy partitions were unconstitutional as applied, awarded injunctive relief (permanent injunction barring reinstatement of the hose method and barring group strip searches without partitions), but granted summary judgment for the City on the medical-treatment (involuntary treatment) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the "hose method" delousing (physical spray over naked detainees) | Williams: the method is an invasive, humiliating procedure when alternatives (self-application, supervised shower) are available; violates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. | City: delousing is a valid penological/sanitation interest; spraying is more effective and safer (compliance 50/50); no touching by officers. | Court: The hose method (as blanket policy) is not reasonably related to the jail’s interest given less intrusive, practical alternatives; unconstitutional as employed until 4/14/2010; injunction bars reinstitution. |
| Group strip searches (detainees disrobing in view of other detainees) | Williams: visual strip searches in view of other detainees are highly intrusive and alternatives (one-at-a-time searches or modesty partitions) are readily available. | City: administrative convenience and efficiency; contends searches were conducted so detainees couldn’t easily view each other and that privacy partitions pose security/observation problems. | Court: Group visual strip searches in the Clothing Room without privacy partitions unreasonably invade privacy; court ordered searches be done individually or with appropriate partitions. |
| Claim for involuntary medical treatment based on delousing | Williams initially asserted unnecessary medical treatment claim but withdrew/failed to oppose at summary judgment. | City: moved for summary judgment on this claim; privileged to dismiss because plaintiff abandoned the argument. | Court: Grants summary judgment to City on the involuntary medical-treatment claim; plaintiff abandoned it. |
| Injunctive relief (scope and necessity) | Williams: seeks permanent injunction barring hose method and group searches without partitions; argues voluntary cessation not sufficient given officials’ statements. | City: contends policies changed and disputes some factual assertions; raises cost/security concerns about partitions. | Court: Issues permanent injunction narrowly tailored under PLRA: bars reinstating hose method and bars group strip searches without privacy partitions; parties to agree form. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (Sup. Ct.) (blanket intake searches and delousing permissible, but manner of search remains subject to reasonableness review)
- Williams v. City of Cleveland, 771 F.3d 945 (6th Cir.) (as-applied challenge: particular manner of delousing and group searches may violate Fourth Amendment; reversed dismissal)
- Stoudemire v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 705 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.) (pretrial detainees’ reasonable expectations of privacy and multi-factor search reasonableness test)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness test for searches of detainees: scope, manner, justification, place)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Sup. Ct.) (consideration of obvious, easy alternatives balancing prisoners’ rights and penological interests)