Kevin Bartholomew v. A. Muhammad

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kevin Bartholomew appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his placement in contraband watch. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bartholomew’s Fourth Amendment claim because Bartholomew failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the strip search was conducted in an unreasonable manner or performed for reasons other than institutional security. See Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 971-72 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (reasonableness of a search is evaluated in the light of the prison’s primary objective of institutional security).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bartholomew’s Eighth Amendment claim concerning defendants’ conduct during the search. See Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1092 (“[Vjerbal harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bartholomew’s Eighth…