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...