Thomas Henry v. SWVRJA Duffield

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: 7:25-cv-00399
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ATROANOKE,VA FILED April 22, 2026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA __ BY: iA. Beeson ROANOKE DIVISION SEPUTY CLERK THOMAS HENRY, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:25cev00399 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) SWVRJA DUFFIELD, ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendant. ) United States District Judge

Plaintiff Thomas Henry, an incarcerated prisoner in Virginia proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging “flagrant disregard for my civil rights” by having a camera on the wall that faces into the shower. Following the required review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I will dismiss the Complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Prisoners surrender many rights of privacy upon their incarceration, given the communal nature of prison life and the security requirements. “A right of privacy in traditional Fourth Amendment terms is fundamentally incompatible with the close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security and internal order.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 527-28 (1984). Even if a prison policy or regulation impinges on an inmate’s constitutional rights, the policy is valid “if it is related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Constant surveillance of prisoners is constitutional because it is reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining security, including minimizing inmate-on-inmate violence and sexual assaults. Garrett v. Thaler, 560 F. App’x 375, 380 (Sth Cir. 2014) (upholding dismissal for failure to state a claim when inmate alleged rights were violated by cameras in the bathroom). Other judges within this District have reached the same result. See Rivers v. Redd, No. 7:25-cv-00537, 2025 WL 2627430, at *1 (W.D.

Va. Sept. 11, 2025) (holding that use of security cameras to monitor inmates while they are showering does not state a cognizable violation of constitutional rights). Although the issue has not yet been addressed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, every Circuit Court considering this issue has agreed. See, e.g., Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093,

1102 (8th Cir. 1990) (“[w]hatever minimal intrusions on an inmate’s privacy may result from such surveillance, whether the inmate is using the bathroom, showering, or sleeping in the nude, are outweighed by institutional concerns for safety”). Accordingly, I will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. An appropriate order will be entered this day. Enter: April 21, 2026 /s/ Robert S. Ballou

Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge