16. Female prisoners.

U.S. Appeals Court SEARCHES

Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). A female federal prisoner brought a civil rights action against prison officials, alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from strip searches. The district court denied summary judgment for the officials and refused to dismiss the action. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner's right not to be subjected to a humiliating strip search in full view of several others was "clearly established" at the time of the search in question. The court held that summary judgment was precluded because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials had a legitimate penological need to conduct the strip search of the prisoner in an open area and in view of inmates and staff. According to the court, while a prison inmate's right to privacy must yield to a prison's need to maintain security, "it does not vanish altogether." (Englewood Federal Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Ford v. County of Oakland, 35 Fed.Appx. 393 (6th Cir. 2002). A female county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county for allegedly maintaining a custom or policy of ignoring sexual harassment and assault claims, and creating an atmosphere that facilitated her rape by a police deputy who was supervising her. The district court granted summary judgment as to the [section] 1983 municipal liability claim, and the appeals court affirmed. Although the deputy was not suspended from duty until after the sheriffs office had completed its investigation, the court noted that the county had a policy against sexual harassment, disciplined the deputy after the results of a state police report became available, and proffered evidence of three other cases in which officers were disciplined for sexual harassment and assault at the county jail. (Oakland County Jail, Michigan)

U.S. District Court FAILURE TO PROTECT FAILURE TO SUPERVISE

Gallardo v. Dicarlo, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a prison warden alleging Fifth Amendment and state law claims. The district court found that the prisoner stated an Eighth ,Amendment excessive force claim against the warden and that the warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. The prisoner alleged that the warden encouraged the use of excessive force, and that he sustained physical injuries from officers' use of force on him that required a 31-day hospitalization and resulted in permanent physical injuries. (California State Prison, Chino)

U.S. Appeals Court MEDICAL CARE

Hallett v. More, an, 287 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). In a class action, female prisoners at a state prison secured a consent decree that addressed health care concerns. The prisoners challenged the prison's attempt to end the decree, sought additional time for court involvement and moved to have prison officials held in contempt for past violations of the decree. The district court denied the prisoners' motions and granted the prison officials' motion to terminate the consent decree. The prisoners appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The appeals court held that dental care and mental health care did not violate the Eighth Amendment, but ordered the district court to consider retrospective relief on remand. The court noted that the district court should have considered whether officials were in contempt for failing to comply with other medical care provisions of the consent decree. (Washington Corrections Center for Women)

U.S. District Court SEARCHES EQUAL PROTECTION

Helton v. U.S., 191 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). Female arrestees brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that United States Marshals conducted unlawful searches and invasions of their privacy. The district court held that the alleged strip search of arrestees satisfied the elements of a tort intrusion upon seclusion. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment precludes police or prison officials from conducting a strip search of an individual arrested for misdemeanors or other minor offenses, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband or weapons. The five women plaintiffs had been arrested for unlawful entry in connection with an "anti-fur" demonstration at a department store. According to their complaint, they were compelled "to remove clothing and submit to a strip and squat search" while six men arrested with them were not subjected to such searches. (United States Marshals Service)