IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30489
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHARON PARKER, Sergeant;
WASHINGTON CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. CA-95-900-C
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James West asserts that he was "given a rule violation" and
placed in administrative segregation for two days for "trying to
show a letter from a ranking officer" to defendant Sergeant
Parker. West essentially challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction at the disciplinary hearing,
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-30489
-2-
arguing that if Parker "had listened or at least looked at the
letter there would have been no write up or rule violation."
West does not allege that the disciplinary proceeding itself was
deficient in any manner.
Prison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned "only
where there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of
the prison officials." Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062
(5th Cir. 1994). West's disciplinary report, which he attached
to his complaint, shows that he pleaded guilty at the
disciplinary hearing to aggravated disobedience. Parker, the
charging officer, stated that she gave West a direct verbal order
to leave the dormitory until completion of inspection and that
West "flatly refused to comply with [her] order." Parker stated
that West was "very argumentative" and caused a disturbance in
the dormitory. There is thus some evidence in the record, namely
the charging officer's report and the fact that West pleaded
guilty, to support the decision reached at the prison
disciplinary proceeding. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing West's claim pursuant to § 1915(d).
West further argues that his constitutional rights were
violated because Parker was given "unrestricted access" to his
dormitory, an "open room with the shower, urinal, and commodes
all in plain and clear view," thus forcing him "to be viewed by a
stranger of the opposite sex." However, this court has
previously upheld the use of female guards in guard towers giving
a full view of male inmates taking showers. See Letcher v.
Turner, 968 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir. 1992). No constitutional
No. 95-30489
-3-
violation occurs when naked male inmates are viewed by female
guards if the presence of female guards is required to protect a
legitimate government interest such as maintaining security at a
correctional facility. Id. West has not argued that Parker's
presence was unnecessary to maintain security, only that her
presence violated his rights under the Fourth and the Eighth
Amendments. Thus, as in Letcher, there is no basis for West's
claim of a constitutional violation due to the presence of a
female guard in his dormitory. See Letcher, 968 F.2d at 510.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
West's complaint pursuant to § 1915(d).
AFFIRMED.