KEVIN B. SMITH, Jr. v. Los Angeles County;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN B. SMITH, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56066
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07028-VAP-
MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin B. Smith, Jr. appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during a partial strip search while
he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
OCT 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-56066 2
review de novo. Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (failure to
state a claim); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to
exhaust administrative remedies). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice four of Smith’s
claims because Smith failed to initiate an administrative grievance process as to
any of those claims before filing his action. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85,
93-95 (2006) (concluding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires
adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,
1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies
prior to filing suit).
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s Fourteenth Amendment claim
against Deputy Sanchez because Smith failed to allege any facts showing that
Sanchez acted with an “expressed intent to punish” or that the search was “not
reasonably related to a legitimate goal.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39
(1979). Smith also failed to allege facts establishing that Sanchez acted with
deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference if “he knows that inmates face a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

-- 2 of 3 --

10-56066 3
reasonable measures to abate it”); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.
1998) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to pretrial detainees).
The district court properly concluded that Smith failed to state a Fourth
Amendment claim against Sanchez because Smith failed to allege any facts
showing that the search was unreasonable in light of “the scope of the particular
intrusion, the manner in which it [wa]s conducted, the justification for initiating it,
and the place in which it [wa]s conducted.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 559 (upholding a
policy of visual body cavity searches of pretrial detainees).
Because Smith failed to state a constitutional violation, there can be no
municipal liability. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)
(per curiam).
The district court properly dismissed without leave to amend Smith’s third
amended complaint because any amendment would have been futile. See Schucker
v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).
Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --