The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57). Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment*fn1 (Doc. 61).
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
This case proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 17) on four claims of violation of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights, all stemming from a strip search and his placement on contraband watch as well as his treatment while so placed. In his amended complaint plaintiff alleges defendants Jones, Garcia, Pavich, Realander, and Oseguerra authorized or conducted a strip search which was excessive and vindictive, and done with the intent to harass and humiliate plaintiff. Next, he alleges defendants Muhammad, McCorkle, Easterling, Webster, Yang, Bucad, Salee, Lowery, Newsom, and Shchebenko denied him adequate toilet facilities. Third, plaintiff alleges defendant Shchebenko destroyed his medication. Finally, plaintiff alleges defendant Webster*fn2 denied him blankets, a shower and hygiene facilities after he soiled himself.
The parties each submitted statements of undisputed facts, and plaintiff filed a statement of disputed facts. Based on these statements, the following relevant summary of facts are undisputed. On October 14, 2007, and February 10, 2008, plaintiff was in the visiting area. During his time in the visiting area, plaintiff was observed putting his hands down his pants.*fn3 An inmate placing his hands down his pants is consistent with an inmate attempting to secrete contraband in order to smuggle it into the prison. Following the observation of plaintiff's hands in his pants, plaintiff was removed from the visiting area, and staff conducted an unclothed body search with negative results. Plaintiff was then placed on Contraband Search Watch (CSW), a decision authorized by the Administrator of the Day. During his time on CSW, plaintiff's access to toilet facilities were restricted to the extent that plaintiff had to wait for the assistance of the correctional officer on CSW duty and the on duty sergeant.*fn4 It can take up to an hour to gather the required personnel at a CSW-inmate's cell before the inmate is allowed to use the toilet. During an inmate's time on CSW, all activity is recorded in a Daily Activity Log every fifteen minutes or as needed. If an inmate soils himself, that is specifically to be recorded on the Daily Activity Log. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Solano State Prison have a policy prohibiting custodial staff from handling or dispensing inmate medication.
At the times relevant in the complaint, defendants Jones, Muhammad, Garcia, Pavich, Realander, Oseguerra and Newsom were assigned in some capacity to the Visiting area. Defendants Easterling, Yang, Shchebenko, Bucad, and Lowery, were assigned in some capacity to the CSW. Neither Jones nor Muhammad personally participated in the unclothed body search of plaintiff.
II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.'" Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied." Id. at 323.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963 amendments).
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to ...