Sattler

MEMORANDUM **

Rodney Sattler, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his civil rights when they punished him for indecent exposure and withheld nasal decongestant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) for failure to state a claim are reviewed de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

*312 Sattler contends Ms privacy was violated when a female prison guard brought his breakfast while he was naked, and that he was improperly disciplined for indecent exposure.

Occasional viewing of male prisoners by female correctional officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy or the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir.1985); see also Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1997).

To the extent the rule against indecent exposure furthers the legitimate penological interest of “preserving institutional order and discipline,” Sattler’s First Amendment claim fails. Barnett…