McCurty

McCurty v. Madsen

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 20233:21-cv-05435California1,657 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

10 Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), filed a pro 11 se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff named the following defendants at CTF: 12 Correctional Officer H. Madsen, Correctional Officer Arlene Stephens, Warden Craig Koenig, and 13 Does 1-3. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory and 14 punitive damages. Id. at 15-16. 15 On December 20, 2021, the Court screened the complaint and found a cognizable Eighth 16 Amendment claim for sexual harassment related to the clothed body search allegations against 17 Defendant Madsen, Stephens, and Koenig. Dkt. 4. 18 Defendant Koenig is the only defendant seeking summary judgment at this time. Plaintiff 19 alleges that Koenig was the warden at the time defendants Madsen and Stephens allegedly 20 performed an improper clothed-body search in retaliation for filing grievances. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff 21 claims that defendant Koenig was aware that this was a systemic problem, but failed to stop it. Id. 22 Meanwhile defendants claim that despite plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, there is no evidence

24 1 Page number…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.