Vadim Miesegaes v. Malinda Durnen

facts sufficient to show that hourly announcements of “ice” or “hot water” were

punitive or excessive in relation to a non-punitive purpose. See Jones v. Blanas,

393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that civil detainees cannot be

subjected to conditions that are “expressly intended to punish,” “excessive in

relation to [a non-punitive] purpose,” or “employed to achieve objectives that

could be accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh methods”).

The district court properly dismissed Miesegaes’s Fourth Amendment claim

against defendant Black because Miesegaes failed to allege facts sufficient to show

that the searches of his person were unreasonable. See Bull v. City & County of

San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 971-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (setting forth

factors to evaluate whether a pretrial detention search or search policy is

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, including whether a search is reasonably

related to legitimate penological interests); Jones, 393 F.3d at 931-32 (noting that

the constitutional rights of civil and pretrial detainees are similar).

21-55708 The district court properly dismissed…