Laing
Laing v. Guisto
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Richard I. Laing appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that the Multnomah County Jail policy allowing female guards to conduct pat-down searches of male inmates violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, United States v. City of Tacoma, 382 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the jail policy did not violate Laing’s equal protection rights because Laing failed to provide evidence sufficient to overcome the defendant’s showing that the cross-gender searches serve important government objectives, and that its means are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 , 116 S.Ct. 2264 , 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996). Laing also failed to show that male inmates are similarly situated to females with respect to intimate bodily searches by guards of the opposite sex. Cf. Hibbs v. Nevada Dep’t of Human Res., 273 F.3d 844, 855 (9th Cir.2001), aff'd, 538 U.S.…