# (PC)Perez v. Moreland

> District Court, E.D. California · January 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10049886

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10049886

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LISA MARIE BELYEW, No. 2:17-cv-0508 KJM AC P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 KORY L. HONEA, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On September 30, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 73. Plaintiff
23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 74), to which defendants have
24 responded (ECF No. 75).
25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the
27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, except
28 for sections IV(D)(i) and IV(F). Sections IV(D)(i) and IV(F) contain a discussion and analysis of
1 the merits of plaintiff’s first claim for relief, which arises from a strip search conducted on
2 plaintiff on December 24, 2016 by defendant Moreland. Review of the record shows plaintiff
3 signed the operative complaint in this action, the first amended complaint, under penalty of
4 perjury. See ECF No. 23 at 6. The first amended complaint is properly considered as an affidavit
5 in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it contains admissible
6 evidence within plaintiff’s personal knowledge. See Schroeder v. McDonald,
7 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s factual averments in Claim One of the first amended
8 complaint are as follows:
9 On or about December 24, 2016 I was strip-searched and forced to
squat and cough multiple times by Officer Moreland. I informed
10 MORELAND that I had severe back and knee problems that
prevented me from bending at my knees. MORELAND then told
11 me to place my face on the floor of the shower. I told her I did not
want to do this because it could put me in danger of contracting
12 Hepatitis A, B, C, HIV and/or Herpes. MORELAND threatened that
if I did not do it she would get some other officers and make me do
13 it. MORELAND made me cough and spread my anus and vagina
until she could “see inside.” Then I heard MORELAND tell a male
14 officer who was standing outside the door while this process was
going on, the door was kept open, and she told him “I don’t trust her
15 because she ‘leaked’ on herself.[“] Because of my extensive history
of sexual/physical abuse and rape this caused me extreme
16 psychological trauma and physical pain because my knee gave out
on me. I filed a grievance on MORELAND for this. I filed a
17 grievance for this incident on or about December 30, 2019 and it was
denied.
18
19 ECF No. 23 at 3. These averments call into question the magistrate judge’s findings that
20 defendants have established as undisputed that “the search was conducted in a private area and in
21 a professional manner” and that defendant Moreland did not require plaintiff to go through search
22 procedures “more times than was necessary to properly complete the search.” ECF No. 73 at 16-
23 17. Good cause appearing, this matter will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for
24 further findings and recommendations on the merits of plaintiff’s claim against defendant
25 Moreland, and, as appropriate, findings and recommendations on defendant Moreland’s qualified
26 immunity defense.
27 /////
28 /////
] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2022, are adopted except as to
3 || sections IV(D)(1) and IV(F);
4 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65) is granted in part and denied
5 || in part as follows:
6 a. Granted with respect to Claims Two and Three on the ground that plaintiff did
7 || not exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing suit; and
8 b. Denied with respect to Claim One on the ground that plaintiff did not exhaust
9 | her administrative remedies; and
10 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further findings and
11 || recommendations consistent with this order.
12 | DATED: January 17, 2023.
13
14
15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10049886. Public record. Not legal advice.