Benjamin Houston v. County of Washington

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN HOUSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JUAN ELENES and DAVIDSON
GREAVES, individually,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
MARK T. FOWLER, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 08-35226
D.C. No. 06-CV-01123-BR (ST)
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAY 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted April 22, 2010**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendants County of Washington, Deputy Juan Elenes, and Corporal
Davidson Greaves appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary
judgment and motions for qualified immunity. Plaintiff Benjamin Houston alleged
Fourth Amendment violations arising from a strip search while he was a detainee
at the Washington County Jail. We review de novo, Bull v. City & County of San
Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), and we reverse.
Plaintiff was arrested, brought to the Washington County Jail, strip searched,
and lodged in the jail for three days. The jail’s policy of strip searching "all
arrestees classified for custodial housing in the general population was facially
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding the lack of
individualized reasonable suspicion as to the individuals searched." Id. at 982.
The district court, which did not have the benefit of the our decision in Bull,
therefore erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff.
For the same reason, the district court also erred when it denied qualified
immunity to Defendants Elenes and Greaves. They are entitled to qualified

-- 2 of 3 --

3
immunity because strip-searching an arrestee who is about to be lodged among the
general population of a jail is not a constitutional violation, even if no
individualized reasonable suspicion exists. Id.
REVERSED.

-- 3 of 3 --