Willie Lee Johnson v. Colette S. Peters;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE LEE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COLETTE S. PETERS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35855
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01872-MK
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-35855
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 of 3 --

3 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 of 3 --