E.D.Pa.: Pro se ptf stated claim for abusive strip search in jail

Pro se prison plaintiff stated a claim for a strip search for in an improper purpose at least at the pleading stage. He also states a retaliation claim that another search occurred where the defendant referred to the lawsuit in doing it. He also brought a claim about listening to his jail phone calls violating the First Amendment which is denied. And if he brought it under the Fourth Amendment he’d lose that too. Fennell v. Horvath, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75181 (E.D. Pa. May 3, 2019).*

2254 petitioner’s search claim is based on an erroneous interpretation of the medical marijuana law as it relates to his search. “Here, it would have been futile for trial counsel to challenge the search warrant on the basis that Investigator Clay failed to advise the reviewing magistrate that petitioner was a qualified patient because the affidavit implicitly states as much. Moreover, the balance of petitioner’s argument requires the court to adopt his erroneous interpretation of the law pertaining to marijuana used for medical purposes. And because the motion to suppress would not have been successful, petitioner has failed to show prejudice.” Scott v. Sherman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74543 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.