(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
** RCLEC is a county institution run under contract by the
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) that houses federal
prisoners.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-8164
Conference Calendar
__________________
JOSEPH UGWUNNA UDECHUKWU ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
LYNDEN LOCKSLEY FRASER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL QUINLAN, Bureau of Prison
Director, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-91-CA-016
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 29, 1993)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Udechukwu, Lynden Locksley Fraser, and Denver Swaby,
federal inmates at Reeves County Law Enforcement Center
(RCLEC),** filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the director
of the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and various non-
federal prison officials. Udechukwu and the others alleged that

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 92-8164
-2-
prison officials violated their constitutional rights by allowing
a female officer to videotape male officers strip searching them
and about 17 other prisoners. Because Fraser was the only
plaintiff to sign and be identified by name in the notice of
appeal, it is effective only as to him. See Torres v. Oakland
Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314-15, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d
285 (1988); Smith v. White, 857 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir. 1988).
This Court construes prisoner's pro se § 1983 actions
liberally. Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 1990).
The district court purported to dismiss the plaintiffs' action
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court in
fact transformed the motion into one for summary judgment by
considering materials outside of the pleadings. This the court
could do because the defendants' motions were styled as motions
for dismissal for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative
motions for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is proper if the moving party establishes
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Letcher v. Turner, 968
F.2d 508, 509 (5th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. This Court
uses the same standards that the district court employed, views
fact issues with deference to the nonmovant, and draws all
inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. Letcher,
968 F.2d at 509.
The presence of female guards during a strip search does not
amount to a constitutional violation of a prisoner's privacy

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 92-8164
-3-
rights. Letcher, 968 F.2d at 510. In Letcher this Court
endorsed principles announced in other circuits that allow
female guards to observe strip searches, monitor male prisoners
in the shower, and conduct pat-down searches of male prisoners.
The Court also cited with approval an unpublished opinion in this
circuit holding that no constitutional violation occurs when
female guards view naked male inmates if the presence of the
female guards is necessary to protect a legitimate government
interest such as maintaining security at a correctional facility.
Id. (citation omitted). In Letcher female guards were present
during strip searches that accompanied a lock-down after "a
number of inmates threw their food trays, banged on their cell
bars, and cursed the guards."
Because a disturbance within the cell block preceded the
search it was constitutionally permissible. Although it was
CCA's policy that strip searches were to be conducted by officers
of the same sex as the prisoners except as necessary in
emergencies, either all available male officers were needed to
respond to the emergency or the female guard was the only one
trained to operate the camera. Because neither CCA's policy nor
its implementation of the policy during the challenged strip
search was unconstitutional, the defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fraser's argument that he was
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as a result of the
search, raised for the first time on appeal, is without merit.
Fraser's motion for appointment of counsel is moot. The district
court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --