United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 28, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30456
Summary Calendar
BILLY SINCLAIR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD STALDER, In his official
capacity; KELLY WARD, In his
official capacity; VENETIA T.
MICHAEL; JOHN ASHCROFT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5-01-CV–188
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy Sinclair, Louisiana inmate # 064373, appeals from the
summary judgment dismissal of his civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Sinclair claimed that the assignment of female
prison guards to tier duty in the residential areas of his prison
unit violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Fourteenth Amendments. Sinclair sought declaratory and injunctive
relief prohibiting the use of female officers to supervise the
living areas at the David Wade Correctional Center, where he is
incarcerated.
After a thorough examination of the record, we have determined
that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986); FED. R. CIV.
P. 56. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
The summary judgment evidence provided in support of
Sinclair’s Eighth Amendment claim shows that the use of female
officers to supervise the living areas of Sinclair’s unit occasions
nothing more than a brief postponement of the necessary functions
of urination and/or defecation, rather than the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain required for a constitutional violation.
See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Green v. Ferrell,
801 F.2d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir. 1986). We affirm the dismissal of
Sinclair’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim because
Sinclair failed to meet his burden to come forward with summary
judgment evidence showing that male and female prisoners are
similarly situated. See Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th
Cir. 2000); Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 283 F.3d 254,
263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 824 (2002).
Under the test set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987), which is properly used to analyze Sinclair’s First and
2
Fourth Amendment claims, the validity of a prison regulation or
practice turns on whether the regulation or practice is “reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest.” Turner, 482 U.S. at
89. This court has previously determined that a state has a
legitimate interest in maintaining security and pursuing equal
employment opportunity practices. See Ordaz v. Martin, No. 93-4170
(5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1993) (unpublished) (prisoner’s civil rights
action). Considering the summary judgment evidence, and in view of
Sinclair’s failure to suggest ready and effective alternatives to
the state’s policy, which is his burden, we have determined that
the state’s policy of using female officers to supervise the living
areas of Sinclair’s prison unit is reasonably related to legitimate
penological objections, including flexibility in security personnel
staffing and equal employment opportunity. See Turner, 482 U.S. at
89-91. Given the evidence presented, Sinclair’s right to privacy,
which is at best minimal, see Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 745
(5th Cir. 2002), must yield to the state’s legitimate interest.
AFFIRMED.
3