John Leo DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERNITZKI, Detention Officer at Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Paul Penzone, et al., Defendants.
Decided: April 14, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
John Leo Davis, Pro Se Charles E. Trullinger, Attorney, Maxine S. Mak, Esquire, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Civil Services Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Arizona state pretrial detainee John Leo Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his rights by viewing him using the toilet and showering on four occasions. See Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth standard for pretrial detainee bodily integrity and cruel and unusual punishment claims premised on allegations of sexual abuse by guards of the opposite gender); Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth standard for unreasonable search claim premised on guards of the opposite gender viewing pretrial detainees showering and using toilets, and explaining that observation that is infrequent, irregular, or from a distance may not constitute a constitutional violation).
Davis’s opposed motion regarding defendants’ compliance with service procedures is denied as moot.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.