Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 924122
Summary Calendar.
Anthony LETCHER, PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
Jimmie TURNER, et al., DefendantsAppellees.
Aug. 17, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Letcher appeals the district court's dismissal of his Section 1983 complaint. For the
reasons set out below, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of his claim that the presence of
female guards during a strip search invaded his constitutional right to privacy. In an unpublished
opinion distributed to the parties, we consider the other issues raised by Letcher and AFFIRM the
district court's dismissal of those claims.
I
Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Letcher initiated this civil rights action against Jimmie Turner, the
assistant warden of the Winn Correctional Center in Louisiana, and the Corrections Corporation of
America, alleging that he was deprived of various constitutional rights while he was confined on cell
restriction following his involvement in an organized food throwing incident, in which a number of
inmates threw their food trays, banged on their cell bars, and cursed the guards.
Essentially, Letcher complains that the restrictions imposed as punishment following the food
throwing incident were not warranted by the infraction that was committed, and that they violated
various of his constitutional rights. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Letcher also filed a motion for summary
judgment. The district court, acting under the authority of Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(d), dismissed all of
Letcher's claims with prejudice, noting that it had resolved essentially the same claims in two cases
filed by other inmates involved in the same incident.
II
The district court purported to dismiss Letcher's complaint action under Rule 41. A reading
of that rule, however, does not reveal an appropriate basis for dismissal in this case. The defendants
moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment. Rule 12(b) provides that, if on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "matters outside the pleading are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment
and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Id. The district judge based his dismissal upon "matters
outside the pleading" and we, therefore, view the "dismiss[al] with prejudice" ordered by the district
court as summary judgment for the defendants.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue
of material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. In reviewing
the district court's grant of summary judgment, we review the record using the same standards as
guided the district court. Walker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 853 F.2d 355, 358 (5th Cir.1988). We,
therefore, cannot affirm summary judgment unless the record reveals no genuine issue of material
fact. Id. We must view fact issues with deference to the nonmovant and draw all inferences
favorably to the party opposing the motion. Id. We will decide questions of law de novo. Id.
Furthermore, "[i]n reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment, an appellate court may
affirm even though the district court relied on the wrong reason in reaching its result." Davis v.
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 525 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.1976) (citations omitted).
With these standards in mind, we turn to review the record before us.

III
Letcher challenges the presence of female guards during the strip search that accompanied
the lock-down following the food throwing incident. He contends that their presence invaded his
constitutional right to privacy. Defendants point out that this strip search was conducted in a
situation where a maximum show of force was required because of the earlier unruly behavior of the
inmates--called an "organized disturbance" by the defendants.
Although there is no case directly on point in this Circuit, the Ninth Circuit has held that
prison officials may conduct strip searches in view of female employees and other inmates, see
Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 33234 (9th Cir.1988), and the Eighth Circuit has held that
female guards may, in addition to monitoring male prisoners during showers, conduct "pat" searches
of male inmates. See Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093, 10991102 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied,
U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2807, 115 L.Ed.2d 979 (1991). Furt hermore, this Court, in an unpublished
opinion, has upheld the use of female guards in guard towers giving a full view of male inmates taking
showers. Barnett v. Collins, 940 F.2d 1530 (5th Cir.1991) (table, No. 911038, unpublished), cert.
denied, Barnett v. Collins, U.S. , 112 S.Ct. 980, 117 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992). In Barnett, this
Court held that no constitutional violation occurs when naked male inmates are viewed by female
guards if the presence of female guards is required to protect a legitimate government interest such
as maintaining security at a correctional facility. Barnett, 45. Given these principles, which we
endorse, there is no basis for Letcher's claim of a constitutional violation due to the presence of
female guards during the strip search.1
IV
Although the district court incorrectly relied on Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(d) in dismissing Letcher's
1Although Letcher contends there were sufficient male guards available to conduct the strip
search without the presence of females, he does not deny that a disturbance involving 18 or 19
inmates had just taken place. In the light of that disturbance, we see no factual dispute sufficient
to cast doubt upon the need for additional security.

claim of invasion of privacy, it considered "matters o utside the pleading," Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), in
granting that dismissal. We will, therefore, treat the dismissal as summary judgment in favor of
Turner and Corrections Corporation of America. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). We "may affirm even though
the district court relied on the wrong reason in reaching its result." Davis v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,
525 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.1976) (citations omitted). Our review of the record reveals that there
is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [defendants are] entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.