rights by conducting the search in a “degrading” and “sexually harass[ing]” manner. That may or may not be the case, but Jackson sued the defendants in their official capacity with respect to this claim, so he must point to a policy or custom requiring or encouraging degrading or sexually harassing searches. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 43, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995). Nothing in the record suggests such a policy or custom exists. (2) Due Process Claim In his brief on appeal, Jackson asserts that the district court gave “short shrift” to his due process claims. He now asserts that he should not have been denied the rights accorded to other Indiana inmates without due process. However, an examination of Jackson’s amended complaint reveals that ir.2000) (<HOLDING>), the court entered judgment for defendants. In
holding that summary judgment was improper on qualified immunity grounds when defendant was aware of prisoners need for medical treatment but failed to provide it holding that summary judgment for defendant officials on the basis of qualified immunity was improper given officials indefinite refusal to treat plaintiffs cavity holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions