Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sonjia MACK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian E. WILLIAMS, Sr.; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
MEMORANDUM ***
Defendants-Appellants appeal from the district court's denial of summary judgment on Defendants’ qualified immunity defense against Sonjia Mack's claim that Defendants violated her constitutional rights by strip searching her without her consent and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when she sought to visit an inmate at the High Desert State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff's Dep't, 872 F.3d 938, 944–45 (9th Cir. 2017), and we “review a district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds ․ de novo,” Roybal v. Toppenish Sch. Dist., 871 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm the district court.
On appeal, Defendants make a new argument based on a decision of this court issued after they appealed, Cates v. Stroud, 976 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (No. 20-1438). Specifically, they contend that, because it was not clearly established before the Cates decision that a prison visitor had a right to leave the facility instead of submitting to a strip search, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Despite the general rule against raising new arguments on appeal, Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2020), we exercise our discretion to consider Defendants’ new Cates argument because it is “purely” legal, see United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Cates rule does not help Defendants. It applies where prison officials have reasonable suspicion to suspect a visitor of bringing contraband into the prison. See Cates, 976 F.3d at 984. Here, unlike in Cates, a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether Defendants reasonably suspected Mack of smuggling contraband. Accordingly, even if Cates were clearly established for purposes of this case, Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.
Even if Defendants did not have the lack-of-reasonable-suspicion problem just discussed, which is dispositive, their Cates argument faces an additional difficulty. Cates held that “a prison visitor has a right to leave the prison rather than undergo a strip search conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion.” 976 F.3d at 984. In the district court, Defendants asserted they told Mack that she could refuse the strip search and leave the prison at any time. Thus, their argument on appeal—that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know they should have given Mack the chance to leave the prison instead of submitting to a strip search—is inconsistent with their position below.
AFFIRMED.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-16590
Decided: September 23, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)