Fortner v. ThomasFortner v. Thomas
John C. Jones, State Law Dept., Atlanta, GA, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON and ESCHBACH*, Senior Circuit Judges.
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
As a matter of first impression in this circuit, we hold that a prisoner retains a constitutional right to bodily privacy. We remand this case to the district court for application of the test announced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-63, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), to determine whether the prison regulations unreasonably impinge on the prisoners’ constitutional rights to bodily privacy.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The appellants, male inmates at Georgia State Prison, appeal the dismissal of their
On October 20, 1989, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
In their complaint, the appellants claim that this controversy began anew when prison authorities began assigning female correctional officers to duties in the living quarters of male inmates. The appellants claim that the female officers act unprofessionally when they view nude male inmates walking around in undershorts, showering, and using the toilet. The appellants claim that the female officers flirt, seduce, solicit, and aroused them to masturbate and otherwise exhibit their genitals for the female officers’ viewing. The appellants also claim that the female officers file false disciplinary reports for obscene acts and insubordination in order to avoid reprimand when other prison authorities discover them engaged in such unprofessional activity. The appellants describe the relevant facilities in their living quarters at the Georgia State Prison. The appellants claim that the female officers file the disciplinary reports after spying on them through a one-inch crack in their cell doors, or after looking at them in the shower through a five by ten-inch window on the shower door.
ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The appellants contend that the district court erred in denying their November 14, 1989 amendment to the complaint adding the disciplinary hearing officers as additional defendants. The appellants argue that the district court committed clear error in denying their right to amend their complaint at least once as a matter of course before the appellees filed a responsive pleading. The appellants also contend that the district court dismissed their complaint improperly based on a finding that the appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. The appellants argue that the district court erred in determining that the female officers did not violate a clearly established right, because the generalized constitutional right to privacy was clearly established at the time. In addition, the appellants contend that the district court erred in dismissing their due process claims based on the consent orders entered in Guthrie. The appellants argue that their complaint seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages which makes a contempt proceeding under Guthrie an inadequate remedy for their claims.
The appellees respond that the district court properly denied the appellants’ motion to amend because their motion to dismiss constituted a responsive pleading within the meaning of
DISCUSSION
This court must review de novo a district court‘s order dismissing a complaint, accepting all allegations in the complaint as true and construing the facts in a light favorable to the plaintiff. Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 55, 116 L.Ed.2d 32 (1991).
I. PRISONERS’ RETAINED PRIVACY RIGHTS
We first note that generally, the existence of an affirmative defense will not support a
In this case, the district court properly found that neither this court nor the Supreme Court had recognized that a prisoner retains a constitutional right to bodily privacy. See generally Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1513 n. 26 (11th Cir.1991) (recognizing that prisoners retain certain fundamental rights of privacy, even though the precise nature and scope of the privacy right is far from settled).
B. It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 638, 107 S.Ct. at 3038; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Relying on our ruling in Muhammad, the district court concluded that this court has expanded the doctrine of qualified immunity to shield government officials from not only civil damages liability, but also to protect officials from claims for equitable relief. See Muhammad, 839 F.2d at 1424 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and concluding that “entitlement to qualified immunity means that the defendants are immune from suit rather than merely immune from liability for damages“). We reject the district court‘s interpretation of Muhammad as establishing an expanded doctrine of qualified immunity in this circuit.
We first note that the language that the district court relied on is mere dicta, because the court in Muhammad reviewed only the district court‘s order denying prison officials qualified immunity from personal liability in a prisoner‘s
C. Because on remand the district court must consider the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief which raises an issue of first impression in this circuit, we now set forth the appropriate standards for reviewing the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief based on alleged violations of their constitutional right to bodily privacy.
In reviewing the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief, the district court‘s first inquiry must be whether prisoners retain the right to bodily privacy. It is clear that prison inmates ” ‘retain certain fundamental rights of privacy.’ ” Harris, 941 F.2d at 1513 (quoting Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 5 n. 2, 98 S.Ct. 2588, 2592 n. 2, 57 L.Ed.2d 553 (1978) and recognizing that “seropositive prisoners enjoy some significant constitutionally protected privacy interests in preventing the non-consensual disclosure of their HIV-positive diagnosis“). As stated previously, this court has declined to define the precise parameters of a prisoner‘s constitutional right to privacy. See generally Harris, 941 F.2d at 1513 n. 26. Although we continue to approach the scope of the privacy right on a case-by-case basis, we now recognize that prisoners retain a constitutional right to bodily privacy.
We are persuaded to join other circuits in recognizing a prisoner‘s constitutional right to bodily privacy because most people have “a special sense of privacy in their genitals, and involuntary exposure of them in the presence of people of the other sex may be especially demeaning and humiliating.” Lee v. Downs, 641 F.2d 1117, 1119 (4th Cir.1981); see also Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (concluding that “we have little doubt that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable the retention of a limited right of bodily privacy even in the prison context“); Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415 (9th Cir.1992) (recognizing that prison inmates retain the right to bodily privacy); Mitchenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333-34 (9th Cir.1988) (same).
In determining the merits of the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief against prison officials for alleged violations of their constitutional right to bodily privacy, the district court must apply the standard of review for evaluating prisoners’ constitutional claims which the Supreme Court articulated in Turner. When a prison regulation or policy “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.Ct. at 2261. Based on the ruling in Turner, this court in Harris identified the following four factors governing the reasonableness review of prison regulations:
(a) whether there is a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the regulation and a legitimate government interest put forward to justify it; (b) whether there are alternative means of exercising the asserted constitutional right that remain open to the inmates; (c) whether and the extent to which accommodation of the asserted right will have an impact on prison staff, inmates and the allocation of prison resources generally; and (d) whether the regulation represents an ‘exaggerated response’ to prison concerns.
Harris, 941 F.2d at 1516 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91, 107 S.Ct. at 2261-63). We emphasize that the fourth Turner factor is not a “least restrictive alternative” test, but rather it allows an inmate to “point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoners’ rights at de minimis cost to valid penalogical interests” as evidence that a restriction is not reasonable. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91, 107 S.Ct. at 2262-63.
In sum, we affirm that part of the district court‘s order dismissing the appellants’ claim for monetary damages for violations of their right to privacy, because the prisoners’ constitutional right to bodily privacy was not clearly established at the time, making the appellees immune for civil damages liability. We reverse and remand that portion of the district court‘s order dismissing the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief, in light of our recognition that prisoners do retain a limited constitutional right to bodily privacy. Accordingly, we leave it for the district court to apply, in the first instance, the Turner “reasonableness” test in determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate for the alleged infringement of the appellants’ constitutional rights to bodily privacy.
The district court dismissed the appellants’ due process claims after finding that their claims of unfair disciplinary procedures, including lack of proper notice, admission of evidence, and excessive punishments, are matters properly brought as a contempt action pursuant to the procedures set forth in Guthrie. See Guthrie v. Evans, CV No. 3068 (S.D.Ga. July 19, 1978, August 4, 1978, December 1, 1978) (orders approving consent decrees); see also Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F.2d 626, 628-29 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that the district court order approving the consent decree is a final judgment); Guthrie v. Evans, 93 F.R.D. 390 (S.D.Ga.1981) (overruling objections to a settlement of contempt proceedings, which class counsel filed on June 17, 1981, seeking compliance with the August 4, 1978 order approving a consent decree). In dismissing the appellants’ due process claims, the district court relied on this court‘s ruling in Saleem v. Evans, 866 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir.1989), which held that Georgia prison complaints that parallel those addressed in Guthrie may only be filed through Guthrie class counsel. Saleem, 866 F.2d at 1314. Because we conclude that the district court erred in relying on the ruling in Saleem, we reverse and remand the district court‘s order dismissing the appellants’ due process claims.
It is clear that a prisoner‘s claim for monetary damages or other particularized relief is not barred if the class representative sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, even if the prisoner is a member of a pending class action. Spears v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 853, 854 (11th Cir.1988) (recognizing that a prisoner‘s claim for monetary damages was not barred from federal court based on a pending prisoner class action where the class representatives sought only injunctive and declaratory relief), opinion vacated in part on other grounds, 876 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir.1989); Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d 125, 127 (11th Cir.1982) (recognizing that a prisoner was not barred from the federal courts based on a pending class action, because the prisoner sought monetary damages and other specific relief not addressed in the class action which only sought declaratory and injunctive relief); Bogard v. Cook, 586 F.2d 399, 408-09 (5th Cir.1978) (recognizing that a prisoner class action does not bar an individual prisoner‘s subsequent suit for damages, where the class representatives sought only equitable relief, where prisoners had insufficient notice of their right to seek individual monetary damages, and where joinder of all individual damage claims would have made the class action unmanageable), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979).2
In contrast, the court in Saleem was not faced with a prisoner‘s claim for monetary damages, as well as equitable relief addressed in Guthrie. See Saleem, 866 F.2d at 1313-14 (involving a
We note that even though it was not appropriate for the district court to dismiss the appellants’ claims for monetary damages based on Guthrie, on remand, the district court may properly consolidate the appellants’ claims with the class litigation, stay the appellants’ action pending referral of their complaints to class counsel, or transfer their case to the Guthrie court. See Herron, 693 F.2d at 127 (recognizing that it might have been proper to consolidate the plaintiff‘s claims for monetary damages with the class litigation or to stay the plaintiff‘s action pending referral of his complaints to class counsel, but that dismissal was not appropriate);
III. RIGHT TO AMEND
Having concluded that the appellants’ due process claims are not precluded under Guthrie, we hold that the district court erred in denying the appellants’ motion to amend their complaint adding the two disciplinary officers as defendants. The appellees contend that their motion to dismiss was a responsive pleading for purposes of
We affirm the order of the district court dismissing the appellants’ claims for monetary damages for alleged violations of their right to bodily privacy, based on its correct conclusion that a prisoner‘s constitutional right to bodily privacy was not clearly established at the time. We, however, reverse and remand the district court‘s order dismissing the appellants’ claims for injunctive relief based on alleged violations of their constitutional rights to bodily privacy. We now recognize that a prisoner retains a constitutional right to bodily privacy. On remand, the district court must apply the “reasonableness” test articulated in Turner in reviewing whether the prison regulations unreasonably impinge on that constitutional right to bodily privacy.
In addition, we reverse and remand the district court‘s order dismissing the appellants’ due process claims, because dismissal of a prisoner‘s complaint which includes a claim for monetary damages is inappropriate when dismissal is based on a class action in which the class representatives sought only declaratory and injunctive relief. On remand, the district court may dispose of the appellants’ due process claims with a transfer to the Guthrie court or other appropriate means. We also reverse and remand the district court‘s denial of the appellants’ motion to amend their complaint adding the two disciplinary officers as defendants.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.