Boxer X v. A. Harris

Boxer X appeals the dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Angela Harris, a guard at his Georgia
prison, who, according to the complaint, made him strip and masturbate for her
enjoyment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, which found that Boxer's complaint did not state an Eighth
Amendment violation and that he failed to name the correct defendant for his claim
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We VACATE the
entry of judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion,
because Boxer has stated a claim under our privacy jurisprudence and for
retaliation under the First Amendment.

I. Background

Between July and November 2003 in Smith State Prison in Glennville,
Georgia, Harris repeatedly approached Boxer's jail cell and demanded that he strip
naked and perform sexual acts of self-gratification.1 On 5 July 2003, Boxer
complained that his food was cold and that his tray was dirty. Harris stated that
she would get him a new dinner if he did her a "favor": "to show her [his] penis"
while she watched through the flap in the prison door. R1-1 at 5. Boxer declined,
and Harris promised retribution.

Incidents of this nature continued for the next several months. Sometimes
Boxer disobeyed Harris's commands, but sometimes he obeyed her. On 1 August
2003, Boxer received two disciplinary reports that followed an encounter with
Harris in which he did perform for her. These reports were for failure to follow
instructions and exposure/exhibition. Boxer received these reports in the prison
distribution system and was not afforded the opportunity to challenge Harris's
statements in front of a disciplinary hearing officer.

On 28 August 2003, Harris approached Boxer again offering not to write
further false disciplinary reports if Boxer followed her orders without question.
Boxer acquiesced to Harris's orders on six occasions from September to November
2003. Boxer subsequently filed grievances against Harris, which were denied.
Boxer sued in December 2003.

The magistrate judge's report construed Boxer's complaint as alleging two
claims: one for relief under the Eighth Amendment and another under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided that the
harassment that Boxer endured was not severe enough to state a claim under the
Eighth Amendment and that Boxer had not factually or legally implicated Harris in
denying him an opportunity to be heard during the administrative punishment
process such that he had stated a claim against her under the Due Process Clause.

Boxer objected to the report and recommendation on the grounds that he had stated
a claim that Harris violated his Due Process, Eighth Amendment, and
constitutional privacy rights and alleged, for the first time, that he was retaliated
against for petitioning the supervisors of the prison for redress for Harris's
improper treatment of him.

The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. Boxer argues on appeal that Harris's conduct at his jail cell
violated his Eighth Amendment and privacy rights; that the retaliation for
exercising his rights under the grievance process violated his First Amendment
rights; and that he was administratively punished without a hearing in violation of
the Due Process Clause. Harris, for the first time on appeal, raises issues related to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(1996), codified in relevant part, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e ("PLRA"). We discuss these
issues in the following section.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of this cases.