Yilver Ponce v. Virgil Lucas, 678 F. App'x 208

Plaintiff Yilver Moradel Ponce, a Louisiana prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming routine strip and visual body-cavity searches without probable cause.
The district court granted summary judgment for prison officials, concluding the searches were justified by prison security needs.
Officials submitted affidavits stating searches targeted preventing contraband flow from outside drivers and stopping removal of items that could become weapons in the garment factory and main prison.
Ponce did not present evidence rebutting the officials’ proffered security justification at summary judgment.
Ponce also urged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and raised prior sexual-harassment allegations that had been dismissed on direct appeal; the court treated the claims under Fourth Amendment analysis and did not reconsider the dismissed sexual-harassment claim.
State-law claims and claims not raised below (negligence, room conditions) were not addressed on appeal; alleged violations of state/internal regulations do not create § 1983 relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether routine strip and visual body-cavity searches violated the Fourth Amendment	Searches were unconstitutional and lacked probable cause	Searches were reasonable and justified by legitimate penological interest in preventing contraband and weapons	Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants; searches were justified under Fourth Amendment framework
Whether Fourth Amendment is the proper constitutional framework	Ponce urged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment analysis	Defendants (and precedent) applied Fourth Amendment framework for searches	Court held Fourth Amendment governs such search claims (Moore controlling)
Whether evidence raised a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment	Ponce offered no evidence rebutting officials’ affidavits	Officials produced affidavits explaining security rationale	Court found no genuine dispute and affirmed summary judgment
Whether alleged violations of state/internal regulations or unraised state-law claims entitle Ponce to § 1983 relief	Argued regulations/statute violations supported relief	Such violations do not create federal constitutional claims under § 1983; state claims not preserved below	Court declined to address unraised state-law issues and rejected regulation-based § 1983 relief

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (recognizing preventing contraband as a legitimate penological interest for searches)
Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999) (Fourth Amendment is the proper framework for prison search claims)
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989) (violations of state or internal regulations do not automatically give rise to § 1983 relief)
Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal court may decline to address issues not raised in district court)
Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment review is de novo; standard for genuine dispute of material fact)