Cook v. Horsely ( 2023 )

Case: 21-10671 Document: 00516673352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 10, 2023
No. 21-10671 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Reyce Janon Cook, also known as Reyce Cook,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Charles R. Horsely, Warden; Joe Milburn, Assistant
Warden; Matthew T. Seymour, Major; Jacob D.
Williams, Captain; White, Sergeant; Jane Doe,
Cadet(s); John Doe, Cadet(s),
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:18-CV-77
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Reyce Janon Cook (“Cook”), a prisoner with the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), brought a Section 1983 claim against multiple
prison guards and administrators alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights
were violated when he was strip searched as part of a training exercise in the
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-10671 Document: 00516673352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2023
No. 21-10671
presence of female guards and dozens of other inmates. The district court
dismissed Cook’s complaint with prejudice, and he was issued a strike
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We REVERSE in part, VACATE in part,
and REMAND.
I. Background
Cook was incarcerated at the TDCJ Neal Unit. On December 22,
2017, Captain Jacob Williams, Sergeant White, multiple other prison guards,
and 40 to 50 male and female prison guard cadets entered a prison dorm to
conduct a strip search training exercise. As part of the training exercise,
cadets ordered Cook to remove his clothing and expose his genitals and anal
cavity within view of other cadets, inmates, and prison officers.
Approximately twenty-five of the cadets and guards who were present for and
participated in the strip search were female. Cook alleges that portions of the
search were conducted by cadets without gloves, despite an outbreak of staph
infection in the Neal Unit. Prison officials videotaped and photographed the
training exercise. Cook alleges that Warden Charles R. Horsely, Assistant
Warden Joe Milburn, and Major Matthew T. Seymour (collectively “Prison
Administrators”) approved the exercise.
II. Standard of Review
We review the district court’s dismissal of Cook’s claims for abuse of
discretion. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks (1) an arguable basis in law because “it is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or (2) an arguable basis in
fact “if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional
facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Berry v. Brady,
192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). We must assume that
a plaintiff’s factual allegations are true, Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234, 236
(5th Cir. 1999), and we recognize that a pro se prisoner is entitled to factually
2
Case: 21-10671 Document: 00516673352 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2023
No. 21-10671
develop his complaint before a proper determination can be made as to
whether it is frivolous, see Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9–10 (5th Cir. 1994).
III. Analysis
We first address Cook’s claims that his strip search was unreasonable
because “there was no legitimate penological justification for the search.”
Under the Fourth Amendment, “searches or seizures conducted on
prisoners must be reasonable under all the facts and circumstances in which
they are performed.” Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 190–91 (5th Cir.
1994) (citation omitted). In analyzing the reasonableness of a search, the
district court is required to balance the need for the search against the
invasion of personal rights that the search entails by considering the scope of
the intrusion, the manner in which the search was conducted, the
justification for the search, and the place in which the search was
conducted. See Watt v. City of Richardson Police Dep’t, 849 F.2d 195, 196–97
(5th Cir. 1988).
Since the district court did not evaluate the reasonableness of Cook’s
strip search, the dismissal of Cook’s complaint against the participating
guards and cadets was premature. See, e.g., Rutila v. Dep’t of Transp., 12 F.4th
509, 511 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021) (“But, ‘mindful that we are a court of review, not
of first view,’ we opt not to seek out alternative grounds on which we might
uphold the judgment.” (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7
(2005))); Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 546–47 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that
we are a “court of review, not of first view” and remanding a matter not
addressed by the district court for examination in the first instance (quotation
omitted)). On the face of his pleadings, Cook appears to have articulated a
viable argument that the strip search was unreasonable. Further fact inquiry
through a Spears hearing should help the district court evaluate the
reasonableness of the search. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181–82
3
Case: 21-10671 Document: 00516673352 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2023
No. 21-10671
(5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we VACATE the dismissal of Cook’s Fourth
Amendment challenge to the strip search.
In addition to filing suit against the guards and cadets that participated
in the strip search, Cook brought suit against the Prison Administrators
under Section 1983 for their failure to properly train and supervise the guards
and cadets who conducted the search. The district court dismissed Cook’s
claims against the Prison Administrators on the premise that his claims were
based solely on vicarious liability, which is not permissible under section
1983. However, the district court did acknowledge that Cook could have
succeeded on his claims if he had alleged that the defendants “either
implemented an unconstitutional policy that directly resulted in injury to the
plaintiff or failed to properly train a subordinate employee.”
The filings of a pro se litigant are “‘to be liberally construed,’ . . . and
‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). Furthermore, a pro se complaint “can only be dismissed for failure to
state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Estelle, 429
U.S. at 106 (internal quotations omitted). If it appears that insufficient factual
allegations could be remedied, “the principal vehicles which have evolved for
remedying inadequacy in prisoner pleadings are the Spears hearing and a
questionnaire to bring into focus the factual and legal bases of prisoners’
claims.” Eason, 14 F.3d at 9 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Accepting Cook’s allegations as true, the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint against the Prison Administrators. Cook alleged that
the Prison Administrators “approved this illegal search.” When construed
liberally, this claim suffices as a prima facie case that the Prison
4
Case: 21-10671 Document: 00516673352 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/10/2023
No. 21-10671
Administrators “either implemented an unconstitutional policy that directly
resulted in injury to the plaintiff or failed to properly train a subordinate
employee.” Further allegations from the complaint, including that the search
was conducted and supervised by senior level prison guards and was
photographed and filmed supports this reading of Cook’s complaint.
Accordingly, it is not “beyond doubt” that Cook could prove a set of facts
that would support his claims. A Spears hearing or questionnaire would be
especially helpful in assisting both Cook and the district court in evaluating
Cook’s claims against the Prison Administrators. For the above reasons, we
REVERSE the district court’s dismissal as to this claim and REMAND for
further proceedings. In accordance with this reversal, the strike issued to
Cook under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is nullified. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996).
5