Houx v. Koll

4 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. Coalinga State Hosp.

    1:18-cv-01049-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. May. 24, 2019)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    For the Fourth Amendment to apply, there must be a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the area invaded." Houx v. Koll, No. 1:15-CV-00146-LJO, 2015 WL 4138967, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2015), subsequently aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 671 Fed.Appx. 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 556-57, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The contours of an involuntarily confined civil detainee's right to privacy in his room in a secure treatment facility are unclear, but assuming Plaintiff retains any reasonable expectation of privacy at all in his living area at Coalinga State Hospital, it would necessarily be of a diminished scope given Plaintiff's civil confinement.

  2. Koch v. Ahlin

    1:18-cv-00546-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Finding plaintiff failed to state a claim under Section 1983 for the "illegal" taking of his personal property, "including but not limited to an X-box Playstation, Tablet, music CDs, X-box games, and headphones"

    For the Fourth Amendment to apply, there must be a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the area invaded." Houx v. Koll, No. 1:15-CV-00146-LJO, 2015 WL 4138967, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2015), subsequently aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 671 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010); Hudson, 468 U.S. at 525; Bell, 441 U.S. at 556-57). The contours of an involuntarily confined civil detainee's right to privacy in his room in a secure treatment facility are unclear, but assuming Plaintiff retains any reasonable expectation of privacy at all in his living area at Coalinga State Hospital, it would necessarily be of a diminished scope given Plaintiff's civil /// /// confinement.

  3. Warrior v. Santiago

    1:16-cv-01504-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2018)   Cited 5 times

    For the Fourth Amendment to apply, there must be a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the area invaded." Houx v. Koll, No. 1:15-CV-00146-LJO, 2015 WL 4138967, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2015), subsequently aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 671 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010); Hudson, 468 U.S. at 525; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 556-57, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The contours of an involuntarily confined civil detainee's right to privacy in his room in a secure treatment facility are unclear, but assuming Plaintiff retains any reasonable expectation of privacy at all in his living area at Coalinga State Hospital, it would necessarily be of a diminished scope given Plaintiff's civil confinement.

  4. Ryan v. Siqueiros

    Case No. 1:15-cv-01152 DLB PC (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2016)   Cited 16 times

    Other courts which have considered the issue have concluded that no Fourth Amendment claim lies because civil detainees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their rooms. See Houx v. Koll, No. 1:15-CV-00146-LJO, 2015 WL 4138967, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2015) (bare allegation that detainee's living area and property were subjected to searches is insufficient to support a viable claim under the Fourth Amendment); Osolinski v. Bigo, No. 1:14-CV-01895-AWI, 2015 WL 403793, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2015) (same); Pesci v. Budz, No. 2:12-cv-227-FtM-29SPC, 2012 WL 4856746, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2012) (civil detainee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his dormitory); Rainwater v. Bell, No. 2:10-cv-1727 GGH P, 2012 WL 3276966, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (finding, on summary judgment, that civil detainee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his jail cell); Pyron v. Ludeman, Nos. 10-3759 (PJS/JJG), 10-4236 (PJS/JJG), 2011 WL 3293523, at *6 (D. Minn. Jun. 6, 2011) (finding motion to dismiss should be granted because a search of a civil detainee's personal items in his cell does not violate the Fourth Amendment), report and recommendation adopted in full, 2012 WL 1597305 (D. Minn. Jul. 29, 2011); Riley v. Doyle,