United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 4, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11222
Summary Calendar
RODNEY WAYNE FERRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIM BOWLES, Dallas County Sheriff; GARY JOHNSON;
WAYNE SCOTT; MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION OF UTAH,
PRISON CORPORATION; UNKNOWN DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AND TDCJ-ID OFFICIALS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-824-N
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Wayne Ferrell, Texas prisoner # 809975, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and certification that his appeal would not be
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997). For the reasons discussed below, Ferrell’s motion to
proceed IFP is GRANTED. Ferrell’s motion for appointment of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-11222
-2-
counsel on appeal is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
The district court was correct in its determination that
there is no constitutional basis for Ferrell’s assertion that he
was transferred from a local prison to the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) in violation
of state law, thereby subjecting him to cruel and unusual
punishment and involuntary servitude. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir.
2000); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997)
(citation omitted). This portion of the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
Contrary to the conclusion reached by the district court,
this court has recognized that prisoners have a right to bodily
privacy. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 745-46 (5th Cir. 2002)
Even though “any such right is minimal, at best,” the intrusion
on the inmate’s right to bodily privacy must be balanced against
the state’s interest.” Id. (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 89 (1987)). The district court’s dismissal of Ferrell’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous on this issue is VACATED,
and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings on this issue.
IFP GRANTED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; AFFIRMED IN
PART; VACATED IN PART and REMANDED.