Willie Johnson v. Colette Peters

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 20, 2021
• Docket: 20-35855
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIE LEE JOHNSON, No. 20-35855

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01872-MK

v. MEMORANDUM* COLETTE S. PETERS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Willie Lee Johnson appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth and

Eighth Amendment violations stemming from two strip searches. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the

record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim was proper

because the searches were justified by penological interests and were reasonable as

to scope, manner, and place. See Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629

F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for evaluating reasonableness of a search

under the Fourth Amendment); see also Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328,

333 (9th Cir. 1988) (inmates must show that prison officials “intentionally used

exaggerated or excessive means to enforce security” to support a Fourth

Amendment claim); Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 930 (9th

Cir. 2001) (“[T]here is no § 1983 liability for violating prison policy. [Plaintiff]

must prove that [the official] violated his constitutional right.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s Eighth

Amendment because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether defendants had “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Somers v.

Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.

1, 8 (1992)).

We reject as meritless Johnson’s contention that the district court erred by

denying with leave to renew Johnson’s motion to compel.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 20-35855 in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-35855