The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
ADARIUS EASON PLAINTIFF
ADC #165382
V. No. 2:21-CV-00050-KGB-JTR
DEXTER PAYNE, Director
Arkansas Division of Corrections, et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The following Recommended Disposition has been sent to United States
District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of
this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain
the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of
this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do
not file objections, Judge Baker may adopt this Recommendation without
independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may
waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Adarius Eason (“Eason”), a prisoner in the Delta Regional Unit of
the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), has filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint
alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 2. Before Eason may
proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.1
II. Discussion
Eason alleges that Defendants Dexter Payne (“Payne”), Dale Reed (“Reed”),
Chrispher Budnick (“Budnick”), Linda Dykes (“Dykes”), and Percy Arnold
(“Arnold”) have violated his constitutional rights by permitting cameras to be
directed on the bathroom of his barracks, which allows guards—including female
guards—to observe him as he uses the restroom and showers. Doc. 2 at 3.
The Eighth Circuit has previously held that “prison officials did not violate a
clearly established constitutional right by allowing female guards to monitor [male
inmates] through surveillance cameras.” Bell v. Conard, 749 Fed. Appx. 490, 491
(8th Cir. 2019) (affirming preservice dismissal) (citing Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d
1093, 1102 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Whatever minimal intrusions on an inmate’s privacy
may result from [opposite-sex] surveillance, whether the inmate is using the
bathroom, showering, or sleeping in the nude, are outweighed by institutional
1The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints,
and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept
the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider documents
attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636
F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
concerns for safety and equal employment opportunities.”)); see also Hill v.
McKinley, 311 F.3d 899, 903 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that a female detainee’s
constitutional rights were not violated when she was required to undress in front of
a male guard).
Accordingly, Eason’s Complaint fails to state a viable § 1983 claim and
should be dismissed, without prejudice.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Eason’s claims against Payne, Reed, Budnick, Dykes, and Arnold be
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Eason’s Compliant be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The dismissal be counted as a “STRIKE,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
DATED this 15th day of November, 2021.
\\rovine
Ae Re one