Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

____________________________________

:

DEDRICK WILLIAMS,

:

both individually and on behalf of a class of :

others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF NIAGARA,

:

THOMAS BEILEIN,

:

both individually and in his

:

official capacity as Sheriff of the County of :

Niagara, SAMUEL MUSCARELLA , both :

individually and as Undersheriff of the :

County of Niagara, and JOHN SAXTON, :

both individually and as Major in the

:

Niagara County Sheriff’s Department,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civil Action Number
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION

This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights

secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America. For at least the past several years, the Niagara

County Sheriff’s Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter

the Niagara County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon

which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from

the written procedures of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, and was promulgated

by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Thomas Beilein, Samuel

Muscarella, and John Saxton.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 23
It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In fact, several judges in this Judicial District, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have recently held that blanket strip search policies/practices like those in dispute in this case are unconstitutional. In short, the policy of Niagara County and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department to forcing those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Niagara County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is degrading, insensitive and unnecessary.
Dedrick Williams brings this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of his civil rights and those of the class members she proposes to represent. Mr. Williams had his bail revoked on Assault in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child charges (both misdemeanors) after Niagara City Court Judge Robert Restaino accused Mr. Williams (and several dozen others) of having a cell phone in court and illegally revoked his bail. The cell phone Mr. Williams (and several dozen others) was alleged to possess was actually a beeping wrist watch, and Mr. Williams was released by the New York Supreme Court several hours later. In the interim, Mr. Williams was transported to the Niagara County Jail and was subjected to a strip search, in violation of his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He seeks monetary damages for himself and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriff’s Department’s policies/practices are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding
2

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 3 of 23
Niagara County and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Dedrick Williams, through counsel, hereby complains as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Dedrick Williams (“Williams”) resides in Niagara County, New York. On March 5, 2005, Williams had his bail illegally revoked by Niagara City Court Judge Robert Restaino regarding pending charges for assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, both misdemeanors. 4. Defendant County of Niagara (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant
3

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 4 of 23
hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff’s Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Niagara County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the Niagara County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Niagara County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York.
5. The Niagara County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s Department”) is a County Sheriff’s Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff’s Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Niagara County Jail (“NCJ”). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff’s Department, together with the County of Niagara, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the NCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the NCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff’s Department, together with the County of Niagara, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Niagara County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel employed in the NCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 5 of 23
6. Defendant Thomas Beilein (“Sheriff Beilein”) is the duly elected Sheriff of Niagara County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Beilein’s principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Sheriff Beilein is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant Samuel Muscarella (“Undersheriff Muscarella”) is the duly appointed Undersheriff of Niagara County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Muscarella’s principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Undersheriff Muscarella is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant John Saxton (“Major Saxton”) is the duly appointed Major of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Niagara County Jail. As such, Major Saxton is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Major Saxton’s principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Major Saxton is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Collectively, Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella, and Major Saxton will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
5

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 6 of 23
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail. 11. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Niagara. The class period commences on May 5, 2003 and extends to the date on which the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Niagara are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 12. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 13. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail every month – all of whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least 4,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.
6

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 7 of 23
14. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Niagara County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
15. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
16. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
17. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
18. Plaintiff has retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiff is being represented by Elmer Robert Keach, III; Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger of Berenbaum
7

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 8 of 23
Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; Gary E. Mason, Alexander E. Barnett and Nicholas Migliaccio of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC; David Gerald Jay of Buffalo, New York, and Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions before federal courts, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated a series of strip search class actions before federal courts, including cases against Rensselaer, Schenectady, and Montgomery County, and serves as lead counsel in similar class actions pending against Clinton, Schoharie and Erie County, New York, Camden, Cumberland and Gloucester, New Jersey, and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
19. Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger are both experienced civil rights attorneys from New York City, having litigated scores of civil rights cases against a number of Defendants, including one prison brutality case presently pending in this District. Mr. Menken and Mr. Rozger have successfully represented many victims of illegal strip searches, including several who opted out of the recent class action litigation against the City of New York. Mr. Menken and Mr. Rozger were also co-counsel in the Rensselaer, Schenectady, Montgomery, Schoharie, Clinton and Erie County class actions.
20. Gary E. Mason is one of this country’s premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product
8

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 9 of 23
Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation. Mr. Mason and Mr. Migliaccio were also co-counsel in the Rensselaer, Schenectady, Montgomery, Clinton and Erie County class actions.
21. Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Waldman & Gilbert, have extensive experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before law enforcement authorities and in proceedings before the United States Congress. Cuneo and LaDuca have successfully prosecuted several complex class actions, including cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer protection and products liability in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Mr. Cuneo and Mr. LaDuca were also co-counsel in the Schenectady, Clinton and Erie County class actions.
22. David Gerald Jay is Buffalo’s most distinguished civil rights lawyer, having practiced with distinction before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York for nearly forty years. Mr. Jay also serves as co-counsel in the Erie County class action.
23. In short, Plaintiff’s counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Niagara County, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
24. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail. In short, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, the
9

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 10 of 23
Policy Making Defendants and Niagara County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
25. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
26. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy/practice of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Niagara County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
27. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
10

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 11 of 23 28. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the
Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several years.
29. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
11

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 12 of 23
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 30. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 31. Upon information and belief, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Niagara County Jail (by forcing them to remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing them to submit to a visual inspection of their body cavities) and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as “strip searches.” 32. The County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations absent particularized, reasonable suspicion, with this principle being clearly established in 1986 by Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986) and recently affirmed by Shain v. Ellison,
12

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 13 of 23
273 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied sub. nom, Nassau Co. v. Shain, 537 U.S. 1083 (2002).
33. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
34. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
35. Upon information and belief, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pretrial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
36. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable
13

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 14 of 23
suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches – each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff – has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff 38. Dedrick Williams’ experience is representative of the class at large. On March 5, 2005, Mr. Williams had his bail revoked on misdemeanor charges of Assault in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child by Niagara City Court Judge Robert Restaino. Mr. Williams was then arrested and placed in the Niagara County Jail until being ordered released a few hours later. The circumstances of Mr. Williams’ criminal charges are related to a domestic dispute, and the circumstances of his revocation of bail are that he was one of several individuals ordered illegally jailed by Judge Restaino after a wrist watch (believed to be a cell phone) went off in Judge Restaino’s courtroom. In an effort to identify the individual with the cell phone, Judge Restaino proceeded to illegally revoke the bail of several individuals present in his courtroom that day. 39. At approximately 5:00 PM on or about March 5, 2005, Ms. Williams was transported to the Niagara County Jail. A short time later, Mr. Williams was moved into a shower area in the Niagara County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Williams removed all of his clothing, including his underpants.
14

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 15 of 23
40. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Williams lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Williams’ genitals and rectal cavity. Williams was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower.
41. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Williams was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Williams that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
42. On several other occasions during the class period, Williams was taken to the Niagara County Jail on minor criminal charges (for example, driving without a license) and subject to a strip search identical or nearly identical to that detailed above.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Williams has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
15

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 16 of 23
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law -44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 43. 45. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons. 46. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Niagara County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiff and class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Niagara County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 47. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department. As such, the County of Niagara is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class. 48. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella and Major Saxton are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in
16

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 17 of 23 the operation of the Niagara County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Beilein, Muscarella and Saxton are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
49. Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella and Major Saxton knew that the Neck’s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
50. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.
17

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 18 of 23
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 51.
53. The policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Niagara and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Niagara County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
54. Plaintiff and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 54.
56. The policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Niagara and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Niagara County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
18

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 19 of 23 57. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Niagara
County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff.
58. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
59. Plaintiff demands that the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Niagara County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
19

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 20 of 23

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 60. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional. 61. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Niagara County.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 62. The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dedrick Williams, on behalf of himself and on behalf of

a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant him the

following relief:

A.

An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

B.

A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiff’s First

Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named

Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury

and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis.

20

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 21 of 23

C.

A judgment against Defendant Thomas Beilein on Plaintiff’s First Cause of

Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

D.

A judgment against Defendant Samuel Muscarella on Plaintiff’s First Cause

of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

E.

A judgment against Defendant John Saxton on Plaintiff’s First Cause of

Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

F.

A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of

Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, practice and custom of

strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Niagara County Jail, regardless

of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

G.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or

minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the

search is concealing weapons or other contraband.

H.

A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

21

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 22 of 23

Dated: May 5, 2006 Buffalo, NY

Respectfully submitted by:

/s Elmer Robert Keach, III

_______________________________

Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire

Member of the Bar, USDC, WDNY

LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT

KEACH, III, PC

1040 Riverfront Center

Post Office Box 70

Amsterdam, NY 12010

Telephone:

518.434.1718

Telecopier:

518.770.1558

Electronic Mail:

bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

Bruce E. Menken, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 104942

Jason J. Rozger, Esquire

BERANBAUM, MENKEN, &

BEN-ASHER, LLP 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

212.509.1616

Telecopier:

212.509.8088

Electronic Mail: jrozger@bmbf.com

Gary E. Mason, Esquire

Alexander E. Barnett, Esquire

Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire

THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone:

202.429.2290

Telecopier:

202.429.2294

Electronic Mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

22

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 23 of 23

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 511605

Charles LaDuca, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 511604

CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP

317 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20002

Telephone:

202.789.3960

Telecopier:

202.789.1813

Electronic Mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com

David Gerard Jay, Esquire

69 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1103

Buffalo, NY 14202

Telephone:

716.856.6300

Telecopier:

716.856.6100

Electronic Mail: davidgjay@verizon.net

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

23

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________

DEDRICK WILLIAMS, MARQUESSA PAGE :

and CAMILE SMITH, individually and on behalf :

of a Class of others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF NIAGARA, THOMAS A. :

BEILEIN, both individually and in his official :

capacity as Sheriff of Niagara County, SAMUAL J. :

MUSCARELLA, JR., both individually and in his :

Official capacity as Undersheriff of Niagara County,:

And JOHN SAXTON, both individually and in :

his official capacity as Superintendent of the

:

Niagara County Jail.

:

:

Defendants.

:

__________________________________________:

Civil Action Number 06-CV-0291
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. For at least the past several years, the Niagara County Sheriff's Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Niagara County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Niagara County Sheriff's Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, and John Saxton. It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In fact, several judges in this Judicial District, as well as the

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 2 of 20
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have recently held that blanket strip search policies/practices like those in dispute in this case are unconstitutional. In short, the policy of Niagara County and the Niagara County Sheriff's Department forcing those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Niagara County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is degrading, insensitive and unnecessary.
Dedrick Williams, Marquessa Page and Camile Smith (together, the “Representative Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. They seek monetary damages for themselves and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriff's Department's policies/practices are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Niagara County and the Niagara County Sheriff's Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, the Representative Plaintiffs, through counsel, hereby complain as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 US.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 US.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 US.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government.
2

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 3 of 20
2. Venue is proper under 28 US.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Dedrick Williams ("Williams") resides in Niagara County, New York. On March 5, 2005, Williams had his bail illegally revoked by Niagara City Court Judge Robert Restaino regarding pending charges for assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, both misdemeanors. 4. Plaintiff Marquessa Page (“Page”) resides in Niagara County, New York. In May and December of 2005, Page was arrested on misdemeanor charges of failure to pay parking tickets and failure to appear in court, respectively. 5. Plaintiff Camile Smith (“Smith”) resides in Niagara County, New York. In June 2006, Smith was arrested on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct. 7. Defendant County of Niagara (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff's Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Niagara County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff's Department personnel, including those working in the Niagara County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Niagara County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff's Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York. 8. The Niagara County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department") is a
3

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 4 of 20
County Sheriff's Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff's Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Niagara County Jail ("NCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff's Department, together with the County of Niagara, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the NCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff's Department personnel, including those working in the NCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff's Department, together with the County of Niagara, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Niagara County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff's Department personnel employed in the NCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York.
9. Defendant Thomas Beilein ("Sheriff Beilein") is the duly elected Sheriff of Niagara County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Beilein's principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Sheriff Beilein is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Samuel Muscarella ("Undersheriff Muscarella") is the duly appointed Undersheriff of Niagara County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Muscarella's principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Undersheriff Muscarella is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 5 of 20
11. Defendant John Saxton ("Major Saxton") is the duly appointed Major of the Niagara County Sheriff's Department and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Niagara County Jail. As such, Major Saxton is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the NCJ exercises custodial or other control. Major Saxton's principal place of business is 5526 Niagara Street Extension, Lockport, NY 14095. Major Saxton is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Collectively, Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella, and Major Saxton will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants."
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail. 14. The class that the Representative Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff's Department and the County of Niagara. The class period commences on May 5, 2003 and extends to the date on which the Niagara County Sheriff's Department and/or the County of Niagara are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
5

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 6 of 20
15. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
16. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail every month - all of whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least 4,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.
17. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Niagara County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants' conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
19. The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. The Representative Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained damages arising
6

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 7 of 20
out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
20. The Representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The Representative Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
21. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The Representative Plaintiffs are being represented by Elmer Robert Keach, III; Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger of Berenbaum Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; Gary E. Mason, Alexander E. Barnett and Nicholas Migliaccio of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC; David Gerald Jay of Buffalo, New York, and Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. Proposed class counsel has successfully prosecuted several strip search class actions identical to that detailed in this action, and have been found to be adequate class counsel on several occasions by other courts.
26. In short, Plaintiffs’ counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Niagara County, the Niagara County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
27. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Representative Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b )(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail. In short, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making
7

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 8 of 20
Defendants and Niagara County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
28. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, the Representative Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
29. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or de facto policy/practice of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Niagara County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
30. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
8

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 9 of 20
31. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants' flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several years.
32. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Representative Plaintiffs also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 33. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 34. Upon information and belief, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff's Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Niagara County Jail (by forcing them to remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing them to submit to a visual inspection of their body cavities) and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 35. The County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff's Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy
9

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 10 of 20
or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations absent particularized, reasonable suspicion, with this principle being clearly established in 1986 by Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986) and recently affirmed by Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied sub. nom, Nassau Co. v. Shain, 537 U.S. 1083 (2002).
36. The Defendants' written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
37. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
38. Upon information and belief, the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriff's Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pretrial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
39. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the Representative Plaintiffs, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or
10

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 11 of 20
establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches each member of the class, including the Representative Plaintiffs - have suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to Dedrick Williams 41. Dedrick Williams' experience is representative of the class at large. On March 5, 2005, Mr. Williams had his bail revoked on misdemeanor charges of Assault in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child by Niagara City Court Judge Robert Restaino. Mr. Williams was then arrested and placed in the Niagara County Jail until being ordered released a few hours later. The circumstances of Mr. Williams' criminal charges are related to a domestic dispute, and the circumstances of his revocation of bail are that he was one of several individuals ordered illegally jailed by Judge Restaino after a wrist watch (believed to be a cell phone) went off in Judge Restaino's courtroom. In an effort to identify the individual with the cell phone, Judge Restaino proceeded to illegally revoke the bail of several individuals present in his courtroom that day. 42. At approximately 5:00 PM on or about March 5, 2005, Ms. Williams was transported to the Niagara County Jail. A short time later, Mr. Williams was moved into a shower area in the Niagara County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Williams removed all of his clothing, including his underpants.
11

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 12 of 20
43. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Williams lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Williams' genitals and rectal cavity. Williams was then provided with a j ail uniform after taking a shower.
44. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Williams was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Williams that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
45. On several other occasions during the class period, Williams was taken to the Niagara County Jail on minor criminal charges (for example, driving without a license) and subject to a strip search identical or nearly identical to that detailed above.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff's Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Williams has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to Marquessa Page 47. In May 2005, Marquessa Page was arrested at the Niagara Falls Police Station on misdemeanor charges of failing to pay parking tickets. Bail was set at $500, the amount of the parking tickets, and Ms. Page was taken to the Niagara County Jail. 48. After being placed in a holding cell, a female Corrections Officer took Ms. Page to a shower room where she was strip searched. As part of the search, Ms. Page was required to lift her breasts and “bend over and spread” to allow the Corrections Officer to inspect her genital area.
12

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 13 of 20
49. Ms. Page was then required to change into the Jail jumpsuit, also under the supervision of the Corrections Officer.
50. Two days later, her bail was posted and Ms. Page was released from the facility. 51. On or about December 26, 2005, Ms. Page was arrested at the Niagara County Jail while visiting a detainee on misdemeanor charges of failing to appear in court. Ms. Page was transported to the court located in the Niagara Police Department, and after bail was set she was taken back to the County Jail. 52. Ms. Page was strip searched for a second time and in the same manner as followed her May 2005 arrest. 53. Nine days later, Ms. Page was released after paying a fine.
Facts Applicable to Camile Smith 54. In June 2006, Camile Smith was arrested at the Niagara Falls Police Station on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct. Ms. Smith was seven months pregnant at the time. 55. From the Police Station, officers transported Ms. Smith to the Niagara County Jail. As part of the admission process, Ms. Smith was taken to a shower room and required to undress completely so that she could be searched. 56. A Corrections Officer checked Ms. Smith’s mouth, ears, and hair. Ms. Smith then had to lift her breasts for inspection and was then ordered to “bend over and spread” so that the Corrections Officer could inspect her genital area. She was then required to change into the Jail jumpsuit in front of a Corrections Officer. 57. Ms. Smith was released several hours later, and the misdemeanor charges were eventually dismissed.
13

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 14 of 20
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law—
58. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs.
59. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
60. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Niagara County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiffs and class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Niagara County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff's Department. As such, the County of Niagara is directly liable for the damages of the Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
66. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella and Major Saxton are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Niagara County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy
14

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 15 of 20
questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Beilein, Muscarella and Saxton are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
67. Sheriff Beilein, Undersheriff Muscarella and Major Saxton knew or should have known that Niagara County’s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
68. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
69. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, the Representative Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs.
71. The policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriffs Department, the County of Niagara and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Niagara County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
73. The Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff s Department to be unconstitutional.
15

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 16 of 20
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction –
74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs.
75. The policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriffs Department, the County of Niagara and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Niagara County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
76. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Niagara County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the Representative Plaintiffs.
77. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
78. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Niagara County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Niagara County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
16

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 17 of 20 DEMAND FOR PUNTIVE DAMAGES
79. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional.
80. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Niagara County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 81. The Representative Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
17

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 18 of 20
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dedrick Williams, Camile Smith and Marquessa Page, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding compensatory damages to each Named Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis. C. A judgment against Defendant Thomas Beilein on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. D. A judgment against Defendant Samuel Muscarella on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. E. A judgment against Defendant John Saxton on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. F. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Niagara and the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Niagara County Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper. G. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband.
18

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 19 of 20

H. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;
I. Any other relief this Court finds to be just, proper and equitable.

Date: April 16, 2007 Amsterdam, New York

Respectfully submitted by: /s Elmer Robert Keach, III

Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Telephone: 518.434.1718 Telecopier: 518.770.1558 Electronic Mail: bobkeach@nycap.rr.com

Bruce E. Menken, Esquire

Jason J. Rozger, Esquire

BERANBAUM, MENKEN,

BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN, LLP 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

212.509.1616

Telecopier:

212.509.8088

Electronic Mail: jrozger@bmbf.com

Gary E. Mason, Esquire

Alexander Barnett, Esquire

Nicholas Migliaccio, Esquire

THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone:

202.429.2290

Telecopier:

202.429.2294

Electronic Mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

19

Case 1:06-cv-00291-WMS-HBS Document 23 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 20 of 20

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire

Charles LaDuca, Esquire

Alexandra C. Warren

CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP

317 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20002

Telephone:

202.789.3960

Telecopier:

202.789.1813

Electronic Mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com

David G. Jay, Esquire

69 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, NY 14202

Telephone:

716.856.6300

Telecopier:

716.856.6100

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

20

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEDRICK WILLIAMS, MARQUESSA PAGE, CAMILLE SMITH individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v. THE COUNTY OF NIAGARA, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER 06-CV-291A

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs move for class certification in this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging federal civil rights violations stemming from defendant Niagara County's alleged practice and policy of strip searching all pretrial detainees admitted to the Niagara County Jail (“NCJ”) on charges of misdemeanors or lesser crimes, regardless of whether there was reasonable suspicion that such detainees possessed contraband or weapons. Plaintiffs rely on Second Circuit precedent holding that “persons charged with a misdemeanor and remanded to a local correctional facility . . . have a right to be free of a strip search absent reasonable suspicion that they are carrying contraband or weapons[.]” Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56, 66 (2d Cir.2001). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, class certification, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of he Niagara County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations or probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Niagara. The class period commences on May 5, 2003 and extends to the date on which the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Niagara are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
Plaintiffs request that the Court certify this action as a money damages
class action under Rule 23(b)(3) and/or an injunctive relief class action under Rule
23(b)(2). In the alternative, plaintiff requests partial certification under Rule 23(c)(4).
The defendants contend that they have two different policies with regard
to the search of incoming detainees at the NCJ, depending on the location in Niagara
County from which the detainee is received. Pursuant to Policy 1109, all detainees
received from the City of Niagara Falls, City of Lockport and City of North Tonawanda
are stripped searched and subject to a body cavity search, regardless of the crime
charged and without reasonable suspicion. Defendants argue that because such
detainees are initially detained in a city facility upon their arrest (e.g., City of Niagara
Falls Police Department), they are already in the “system” and are therefore subject to
strip and body cavity searches pursuant to the Second Circuit’s decision in Covino v.
Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992) (random body cavity searches of prison inmates is
constitutional because such searches are related to legitimate penological interests and
inmates did not show reasonable alternatives would be fully effective). In other words,
2

for the purpose of being subject to strip and body cavity searches, defendants equate such detainees to prison inmates.
The second policy, Policy 1201, applies to all other detainees arrested in any other part of Niagara County and brought directly to the NCJ. For example, someone arrested in the Town of Lewiston is brought directly to the NCJ. Under Policy 1201, such detainees are not automatically subject to being strip searched. Instead, they are subject to being strip searched only if there is reasonable suspicion that they possess contraband or a weapon. All such detainees are, however, subject to a “clothing change-out” procedure, whereby they must change into a jail uniform. Defendants argue that such a procedure does not constitute a strip search and is constitutional.
With regard to Policy 1109, plaintiffs reply that detainees are not the equivalent of prison inmates and therefore Covino does not apply. See Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 170-72 (2d Cir. 2007) (distinguishing between Shain and Covino based on the type of facility involved). With regard to Policy 1201, plaintiffs argue that the “clothing change-out” procedure is the equivalent of a strip search and is therefore unconstitutional. Kelsey v. County of Schoharie, 2007 WL 603406 at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2007) (denying county defendant’s motion for summary judgment that clothing exchange procedure was constitutional as there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the detainees were required to disrobe in front of correctional officers, who probably observed the inmates' bodies) (citing Marriott v. County of Montgomery, 227 F.R.D. 159, 169 (N.D.N.Y.2005), aff'd, 2005 WL 3117194 (2d Cir. Nov. 22, 2005).
For the reasons stated, the Court grants class certification, but not of the 3

class proposed by the plaintiffs. Instead, the Court certifies two separate classes, one
for detainees strip searched pursuant to Policy 1109 and one for detainees subject
only to the “clothing change-out” procedure under Policy 1201.
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
The certification of class actions is governed by Rule 23, provides in
pertinent part:
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
* * *
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
4

adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
(c) Certification Order; Notice to Class Members; Judgment; Issues Classes; Subclasses.
* * *
(4) Particular Issues. When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.
Most courts that have addressed class certification in the jail strip search
context have proceeded under Rule 23(b)(3). See, e.g., In re Nassau County Strip
Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 225 (2d Cir. 2006); Mitchell v. County of Clinton, 2007
WL 1988716 (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 5, 2007). In order to achieve class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must (1) satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a), which are
numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation; (2) demonstrate
that common “questions of law or fact” predominate over “any questions affecting only
individual members”; and (3) establish that the class action mechanism is “superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” In re
5

Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d at 225 (internal quotations and citation omitted) (reversing district court’s denial of class certification motion in jail strip search case).
B. Numerosity The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied by a showing
that, due to the number of potential class members, joinder of individual members as named plaintiffs would be impracticable. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir.1995). In the case at bar, the numerosity of plaintiff's proposed class is supported by the deposition testimony of Niagara County Sheriff Thomas Beilen, who testified that the daily capacity of the NCJ is 500 detainees, and that the NCJ processes about 5,500 detainees annually. As part of discovery, defendants have proffered booking data for over 13,000 misdemeanor detentions. Plaintiffs estimate the class size to be over 8,000 individuals. The numerosity requirement is met.
C. Commonality Under Rule 23(a)(2), plaintiff must also show commonality, that is, that the
action raises an issue of law or fact common to the class. See Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 267 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir.2001). The Court finds that the class proposed by the plaintiffs fails to meet the commonality requirement as there are significant factual differences between the Policy 1109 detainees and the Policy 1201
6

detainees. The defendants admit that the Policy 1109 detainees are automatically subjected to a strip and body cavity search. Whether such a policy is constitutional will presumably be a matter of law. Policy 1201 detainees, on the other hand, are subject only to the “clothing change-out” procedure, and there are disputed issues of fact as to exactly what happens during that procedure, e.g., whether or not the jail personnel view the detainees as they are changing. Because the two different sets of detainees, Policy 1109 detainees and Policy 1201 detainees, were subject to two different procedures, the Court finds that they should constitute two separate classes. Dividing the proposed class into two separate classes will enhance the commonality of the factual issues in each class.
D. Typicality The typicality factor, set forth in Rule 23(a)(3), concerns whether the claim
of the class representative is typical of the claims of the class. See Robinson, 267 F.3d at 155. Plaintiff must show that each class member's claim “arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, the named plaintiffs claim that they were misdemeanor detainees, that they were strip searched without reasonable suspicion pursuant to defendants' Policy 1109, that Policy 1109 was unconstitutional, and that defendants are liable. Their claims thus arise from the same course of events and are based on the same legal arguments as the claims of every other Policy 1109 detainee class member. Therefore, the requirement of typicality is met with regard to Policy 1109 detainees.
7

With regard to Policy 1201, however, there is no named plaintiff who was “searched” pursuant to that Policy. The Court shall allow plaintiffs and their counsel 60 days to locate a class representative to represent the Policy 1201 detainees.
E. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representative “fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.” Adequate representation depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation; and (b) the class members, and especially the representative party, must not have interests antagonistic to one another. In re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 78 F.3d 764, 778 (2d. Cir. 1996). Both prerequisites of adequacy of representation are met in the instant case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have extensive experience in this type of litigation, and there is no indication that the class members would have interests antagonistic to one another.
F. Predominance and Superior Method The Court finds that the plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) because they have shown that common questions predominate over questions affecting individual plaintiffs, and that a class action is the best method of adjudicating this case.
The predominance requirement tests whether proposed classes are “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods. Inc. v.
8

Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). A plaintiff must show that the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof-and thus applicable to the class as a whole-predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof. See In re Visa Check/Master Money Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 136 (2d Cir. 2001).
Here, the questions of whether the alleged policies and practice of the NCJ existed, whether they were unconstitutional, and whether defendants are liable are subject to generalized proof and are common to all potential class members. These issues predominate over those issues that are subject to individualized proof. In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d at 228. Moreover, the division of the proposed class into two separate classes heightens the predominance of issues common to the class members in each of the respective classes.
Further, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. “[W]hen plaintiffs are allegedly aggrieved by a single policy of defendants, such as the blanket policy at issue here, the case presents precisely the type of situation for which the class action device is suited since many nearly identical litigations can be adjudicated in unison.” Id. at 228 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Given the size of the class and the predominance of issues subject to generalized proof, the class action procedure will increase the efficiency of the litigation and the uniformity of the outcome. In addition, under the circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that many members of the class would have the resources or desire to pursue their claims individually in separate actions. Nor is it likely that separate actions would result in better outcomes for the claimants. In light of the nature of the issues and the flexibility accorded to courts in handling class actions, it is
9

unlikely that the management of this case as a class action will present inordinate difficulties. Mitchell, 2007 WL 1988716 at *5.

G. Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4) Having determined to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court need
not consider whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or partial certification under Rule 23(c)(4) would also be appropriate. In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d at 230 n. 4.1

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification, and it is therefore
ORDERED that the following two classes are certified:
Class One - Policy 1109 Detainees
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of he Niagara County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations or probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes, and having been committed to the Niagara County Jail based on criminal charges originating in the cities of Niagara Falls, North Tonawanda and Lockport, and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Niagara. The class period commences on May 5, 2003 and extends to the date on which the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Niagara are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their

1

In their memorandum of law in support of the motion for class certification,

plaintiffs “suggest” that the defendants be required to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in providing

notice to the absent class members. It is the Court’s hope that counsel will be able to work this

out amongst themselves without Court intervention.

10

unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
Class Two - Policy 1201 Detainees
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of he Niagara County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations or probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes, and having been committed to the Niagara County Jail based on criminal charges originating in jurisdictions outside of the cities of Niagara Falls, North Tonawanda and Lockport, and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Niagara County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Niagara. The class period commences on May 5, 2003 and extends to the date on which the Niagara County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Niagara are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees;
and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ attorneys of record are appointed as class
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date of this Order to
identify and move for the intervention of a class representative for the class
denominated “Class Two - Policy 1201 Detainees”; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Hugh B.
Scott pursuant to the nondispositive referral order filed July 21, 2006.
11

SO ORDERED. DATED: September 26 , 2008

s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 1 of 16
CASREF,MEDIATION
U.S. DISTRICT COURT U.S. District Court, Western District of New York (Buffalo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00291−RJA−HBS

Williams v. The County of Niagara et al Assigned to: Hon. Richard J. Arcara Referred to: Hon. Hugh B. Scott Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Dedrick Williams both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

Date Filed: 05/05/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alexander E. Barnett The Mason Law Firm, LLP 1120 Avenue of the Americas Suite 4019 New York, NY 10036 516−740−7773 Fax: 516−740−7873 Email: abarnett@yourlawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra C. Warren Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca, LLP 106−A S. Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Email: awarren@cuneolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce E. Menken Beranbaum Menken Ben−Asher &Bierman LLP 80 Pine Street 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 212−509−1616 Fax: 212−509−8088 Email: bmenken@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Joseph LaDuca Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 202−789−3960 Fax: 202−789−1813 Email: charlesL@cuneolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G. Jay 69 Delaware Avenue Suite 1103 Buffalo, NY 14202−3811 (716) 856−6300 Fax: (176) 856−6100 Email: davidgjay@verizon.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 2 of 16

Elmer R. Keach , III Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach III 1040 Riverfront Center P. O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 (518) 434−1718 Fax: 518.770.1558 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary E. Mason Whitfield Bryson &Mason LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 202−429−2290 Fax: 202−429−2294 Email: gmason@masonlawdc.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J. Rozger Beranbaum Menken Ben−Asher &Bierman LLP 80 Pine Street 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 509−1616 Fax: (212) 509−8088 Email: jrozger@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan W. Cuneo Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca, LLP 317 Massachusetts Ave, N.E. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002 202−789−3960 Fax: 202−789−1813 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas A. Migliaccio Whitfield Bryson &Mason LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 202−429−2290 Fax: 202−429−2294 Email: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany B. Schumann−McGhee 2465 Riverfront Center Amsterdam, NY 12010 Email: bethany@keachlawfirm.com TERMINATED: 02/22/2010

Plaintiff Marquessa Page

represented by

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 3 of 16

Alexandra C. Warren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Alexander E. Barnett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany B. Schumann−McGhee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2010

Charles Joseph LaDuca (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas A. Migliaccio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Camile Smith individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated

represented by Alexandra C. Warren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Alexander E. Barnett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany B. Schumann−McGhee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2010

Charles Joseph LaDuca (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas A. Migliaccio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The County of Niagara

represented by Frank T. Gaglione Hiscock &Barclay, LLP 1100 MTCenter Three Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14203 Email: ftgaglione@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 4 of 16

James Paul Domagalski Hiscock &Barclay LLP 1100 MTCenter Buffalo, NY 14203 716−566−1510 Fax: 716−566−4003 Email: jdomagalski@hblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn P. Martin Hurwitz &Fine, P.C. 1300 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 (716) 849−8900 Fax: 716−855−0874 TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

Defendant
Thomas Beilein both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Niagara

represented by Frank T. Gaglione (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Paul Domagalski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn P. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

Defendant
Samuel Muscarella both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Niagara

represented by Frank T. Gaglione (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Paul Domagalski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn P. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

Defendant
John Saxton both individually and as Major in the Niagara County Sheriff's Department

represented by Frank T. Gaglione (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Paul Domagalski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn P. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2006

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 5 of 16

Date Filed 05/05/2006 05/05/2006 06/29/2006
06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 07/10/2006 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 07/20/2006 07/21/2006 07/24/2006
07/24/2006

# Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 20929.), filed by Dedrick Williams.(JDK, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

Summons Issued as to The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (JDK, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Dedrick Williams. The County of Niagara served on 6/13/2006, answer due 7/3/2006; Thomas Beilein served on 6/13/2006, answer due 7/3/2006; Samuel Muscarella served on 6/13/2006, answer due 7/3/2006; John Saxton served on 6/13/2006, answer due 7/3/2006. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

3 STIPULATION to Extend Defendants' Time to Answer by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Martin, Shawn) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton re 3 Stipulation (Martin, Shawn) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

Answer due date updated as to The County of Niagara answer due 7/19/2006; Thomas Beilein answer due 7/19/2006; Samuel Muscarella answer due 7/19/2006; John Saxton answer due 7/19/2006 (JDK, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

5 TEXT ORDER. The 3 Stipulation to extend Defendants' time to answer or otherwise move is HEREBY SO APPROVED. Time is extended to 7/19/2006. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/7/2006. (MEAL) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

6 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton.(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton re 6 Answer to Complaint (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

AUTOMATIC REFERRAL to Mediation (JDK, ) (Entered: 07/20/2006)

8 NON−DISPOSITIVE REFERRAL ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott. Signed by Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/20/2006. (Dzielski, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2006)

9

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

The Court notes that the motion to compel filed by the defendants includes multiple exhibits. The Court reminds counsel that, in addition to electronic filing, paper copies of all motion papers shall be forwarded to Chambers.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 7/24/06. (JRA) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

10

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

The above Order 9 is vacated as having been inadvertantly filed under the the wrong docket number.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 7/24/06. (JRA) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 6 of 16

08/02/2006

11

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

This case has been referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings. A scheduling conference will be held on August 28, 2006 at 2:00 pm, in the chambers of the undersigned.

PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. This means that, at a minimum, (1) the parties are to have exchanged initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(1); (2) the parties are to have met or conferred as required under Rule 26(f); and (3) the parties are to have submitted a proposed discovery plan to the Court at least 7 days prior to the scheduling conference as also required by Rule 26(f).

Also, the Magistrate Judge is available to conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or non−jury civil matter and to order the entry of judgment in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Attached hereto is a Notice of Right to Consent to Disposition of a Civil Case by a United States Magistrate Judge, together with a consent form, for consideration by the parties. The parties are encouraged to consider and act favorably on such consents; however, it is emphasized that there will be no substantive adverse consequences should the parties elect not to do so. Counsel are directed to discuss this option with their clients as soon as practicable and prior to the Magistrate Judge's participation in settlement discussion in this case.

So Ordered.

08/02/2006 08/28/2006

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 8/2/06. (JRA) (Entered: 08/02/2006)

12 ORDER to substitute attorneys as follows: former attorney for defendnts County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella and John Saxton, Paul Suozzi, Esq. current attorney, James Domagalski, Esq. Frank Gaglione, Esq. . Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 8/2/06. (JDK, ) (Entered: 08/04/2006)

13

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

08/30/2006 09/12/2006 10/12/2006 03/26/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007
04/04/2007 04/09/2007

Scheduling Conference held on 8/28/2006. D. Jay for plaintiffs; J. Domalgalski for defendants. Order to issue.(JRA) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER setting dates for class certification discovery and motions.Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 8/30/06. (JRA) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
Test entry (JDK, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
15 Stipulation−Selection of Mediator by The County of Niagara (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
16 NOTICE by Dedrick Williams of Change of Firm Name and Address for Alexander E. Barnett and Change of Firm Name for Gary E. Mason (Barnett, Alexander) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Scheduling Order by Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Menken, Bruce) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
E−Filing Notification: Document is in Letter form and Letters are not to be E−filed, Motion to be Terminated, Attorney to be Notified** 17 MOTION for Extension of Time (JDK, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
18 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend the Pleadings by Dedrick Williams.(Menken, Bruce) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
19 TEXT ORDER. IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the 18 Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend the Pleadings is GRANTED. Time is extended to 4/16/2007. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 4/5/2007. (MEAL) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 7 of 16

04/09/2007 04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007

20 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alexandra C. Warren by Dedrick Williams.(LaDuca, Charles) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

E−Filing Notification: No Proof of Service provided for 20 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alexandra C. Warren. (DLC) (Entered: 04/10/2007)

Second E−Filing Notification: No Proof of Service provided for 20 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alexandra C. Warren. (DLC) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

21 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alexandra C. Warren by Dedrick Williams.(LaDuca, Charles) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

22

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE COURT'S ORDER

Before the court is a motion for the admission of Alexandra C. Warren, Esq., pro hac vice (Docket Nos. 20 and 21). Upon the above referenced application and supporting papers and the Certificate of Service stating service upon all other parties, and no opposition being shown; the motion has been deemed submitted and is hereby GRANTED. It is ordered that upon the payment of the admission fee pursuant to Rule 83.1(l) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York and registration with the Court's Electronic Case Filing system ("ECF"), Alexandra C. Warren, Esq., may appear herein on behalf of the plaintiff.

So Ordered.

04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/19/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/28/2007
07/02/2007
07/02/2007 07/06/2007

Signed by Judge Hugh B. Scott on 4/12/07. (JRA) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT Filed as of Right Pursuant to Stipulation and Order of the Court against all defendants, filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 23 Amended Complaint (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee: $ 75, receipt number 2619 received from Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. (JDK, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
25 Amended ANSWER to Amended Complaint by The County of Niagara.(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara re 25 Answer to Amended Complaint (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
27 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification, On Consent by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation in Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service)Motions referred to Hugh B. Scott.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
28 TEXT ORDER. IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the 27 Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to File their Class Certification Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is now due 7/6/2007. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/2/2007. (MEAL) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs Motion for class certification due by 7/6/2007. (JDK) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
29 MOTION to Certify Class by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation in support of motion# 2 Exhibit A −− Beilein Dep., p. 1−50# 3 Exhibit A −− Beilein Deposition, p. 51−100# 4 Exhibit A −− Beilein Dep., p. 101−150# 5 Exhibit A −− Beilein Dep., p. 151−200# 6 Exhibit A − Beilein Dep., p. 201−243# 7 Exhibit A −− beilein dep., exhibits, part 1# 8 Exhibit A −− Beilein Dep., exhibits part 2# 9 Exhibit A −− Beilein Dep., exhibits, part 3#

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 8 of 16

07/24/2007 07/24/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 08/14/2007 08/14/2007 08/20/2007 08/29/2007
09/05/2007 09/28/2007

10 Exhibit B −− Williams Dep., p. 1−50# 11 Exhibit b −− williams Dep., p. 51−100# 12 Exhibit c −− Page Dep., p. 1−50# 13 Exhibit C −− Page Dep., p. 51−100# 14 Exhibit C −− page dep., p. 101−150# 15 Exhibit D −− Smith Dep., p. 1−50# 16 Exhibit D −− Smith Dep., p. 51−85# 17 Exhibit E −− Amended complaint# 18 Exhibit F −− Niagara County Strip Search Policy# 19 Exhibit G −− Domagalski letter# 20 Exhibit H −− Engert Memorandum# 21 Exhibit I −− Mitchell v. County of Clinton Decision# 22 Exhibit J −− Tyson v. City of New York Bench Decision# 23 Exhibit K −− Kahler Decision# 24 Exhibit L −− Keach Firm Resume# 25 Exhibit M − Berenbaum Firm Resume# 26 Exhibit N −− Mason Firm Resume# 27 Exhibit O −− Cuneo Firm Resume# 28 Exhibit P −− Sample Booking Records# 29 Exhibit Q −− Pritchard Decision# 30 Memorandum in Support # 31 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 07/07/2007)

30 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Nicholas A. Migliaccio by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Nicholas A. Migliaccio# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Barnett, Alexander) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

E−Filing Notification: 30 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Filed Without Proof of Service (JDK) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

31 NOTICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 30 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Nicholas A. Migliaccio Notice of Service (Barnett, Alexander) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

32 TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER on 29 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. Response due by 8/20/2007. Reply due by 9/10/2007. Oral Argument to be scheduled by the Court if necessary. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/24/2007. (MEAL) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton.(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

34 AFFIDAVIT re 33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

35 TEXT ORDER. IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the 33 Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Response to 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED. Defendants' response is now due 9/28/2007. Plaintiff's reply is now due 10/19/2007. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 8/16/2007. (MEAL) (Entered: 08/20/2007)

36

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

Before the court is a motion for the admission of Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq., pro hac vice (Docket No. 10). Upon the above referenced application and supporting papers and the Certificate of Service stating service upon all other parties, and no opposition being shown; the motion has been deemed submitted and is hereby GRANTED. It is ordered that upon the payment of the admission fee pursuant to Rule 83.1(l) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York and registration with the Court's Electronic Case Filing system ("ECF"), Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq., may appear herein on behalf of the plaintiffs.

So Ordered.

Signed by Judge Hugh B. Scott on 8/29/07.(JRA) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
Filing fee: $ 75, receipt number 4417 ;pro hac vice received from Nicholas Migliaccio (JDK) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
37 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel Engert in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Certify Class with Exhibit A to C filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 9 of 16

09/28/2007 09/28/2007
09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/19/2007 10/23/2007
10/26/2007
05/30/2008 05/30/2008 06/30/2008 08/05/2008
08/05/2008 08/06/2008

Muscarella, John Saxton. (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
38 AFFIDAVIT of Frank T. Gaglione in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Certify Class filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
39 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS to 38 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion Exhibits D through J. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D part 2# 2 Exhibit D part 3# 3 Exhibit D part 4# 4 Exhibit D part 5# 5 Exhibit E part 1# 6 Exhibit E part 2# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G part 1# 9 Exhibit G part 2# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
40 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Certify Class filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton re 39 Continuation of Exhibits, 40 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 37 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 38 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION to Certify Class On Consent by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of Elmer Keach# 2 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
43 TEXT ORDER. IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the 42 Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply in support of their 29 Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' reply is now due 10/26/2007. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. William M. Skretny on 10/22/2007. (MEAL) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Affirmation of Elmer Keach# 2 Exhibit R −− Committment Report, March 11, 2005# 3 Exhibit S −− Transport Statistics, March 2005# 4 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
45 TEXT ORDER This case is hereby transferred to Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/30/2008. (JMB) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
Hon. Richard J. Arcara added. Hon. William M. Skretny no longer assigned to case. (JMB) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT. Oral Argument is scheduled for 8/6/2008 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara as to 29 plaintiffs motion to certify class.(DJD) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
46 RESPONSE in Support re 29 MOTION to Certify Class Supplemental Affirmation Correcting Exhibit and Providing Supplemental Authority to the Court filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Plaintiffs' Exhibit B −− Williams Deposition, Part 1, # 2 Corrected Exhibit B −− Part 2, # 3 Corrected Exhibit B −− Part 3, # 4 Corrected Exhibi B −− Part 4, # 5 In Re Nassau County decision, # 6 Florence Decision, # 7 Delandro Decision)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
E−Filing Notification: Filed without proof of service** 46 RESPONSE in Support (JDK) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held 8/6/2008 before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Oral Argument is held as to 29 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit further papers as to proposed class definition; one class certification or two class certification. Decision is reserved. Appearances: Pltfs − Elmer Keach, Gary Mason and Charles LaDuca; Defts − Frank Gaglione and James Domagalski (Court Reporter Yvonne Garrison.) (DJD) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 10 of 16

08/23/2008 08/27/2008 09/10/2008
09/11/2008
09/29/2008 09/30/2008

47 AFFIRMATION signed by Elmer Keach re 29 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams Supplemental Submission on Class Definition, With Certificate of Service filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/23/2008)

48 TEXT ORDER: Defendants may file a response to 47 Affirmation, filed by Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams, Marquessa Page on or before 9/10/2008. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/27/2008. (JMB) (Entered: 08/27/2008)

49 AFFIRMATION signed by Frank T. Gaglione re 48 Text Order, 47 Affirmation, filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton In Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submission on Class Definition filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

50 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/6/08, before Judge Richard J. Arcara. Court Reporter/Transcriber Yvonne M. Garrison, Telephone number 716−847−2477. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 10/2/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/14/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/10/2008. (JDK) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

51 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Certify Class, referring case back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 9/29/2008. (JMB) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

52

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

A status / scheduling conference shall take place in this matter on December 9, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned.

So Ordered.

09/30/2008 11/26/2008

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 9/30/08. (JRA) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

Set Deadlines/Hearings: status/ Scheduling Conference set for 12/9/2008 02:00 PM before Hon. Hugh B. Scott. (JDK) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

53

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

By letter dated November 13, 2008, counsel for the defendants have requested that the December 9, 2008 scheduling / status conference in this case be rescheduled due to a conflict. The conference is re−scheduled to December 17, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. before the undersigned.

So Ordered.

12/16/2008

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 11/26/08. (JRA) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

54

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

By letter dated December 15, 2008, counsel for the plaintiff, Elmer Keach, Esq. and Charles LaDuca, Esq. have requested permission to participate in the December 17, 2008 scheduling / status conference by telephone. The defendants do not object. The request is granted. The Court will initiate the telephone call. If plaintiffs counsel will be at a telephone number other than the one listed on the docket, counsel shall notify the Court of that telephone number as soon as possible.

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 11 of 16

12/17/2008
12/18/2008 06/02/2009 06/05/2009 06/10/2009 08/17/2009
09/01/2009

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 12/16/08. (JRA) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

55

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

Scheduling / Status Conference held on 12/17/2008. D. Jay, E. Keach (phone), C. LaDuca (phone), B. Thompson for plaintiffs; J. Domagalski for defendants. The plaintiffs advised the Court that they will not pursue claims relating to the second class certified by the District Court [the Policy 1201 class]. At the time of the conference, the Court indicated that dates for settlement conferences would be included in the scheduling order. The Court was not aware, at that time, that this case was previously referred to mediation by the District Court and that a mediator had already been appointed. Thus, the parties must engage in the mediation process. The docket does not reflect that the parties engaged in mediation as directed in the initial scheduling order. [Docket No. 14]. Second Scheduling Order to issue. (JRA) (Entered: 12/18/2008)

56 SCHEDULING ORDER setting dates for pretrial proceedings: Discovery to be completed by 8/31/2009. Dispositive motions due by 11/30/2009. Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 12/18/08. (JRA) (Entered: 12/18/2008)

57 NOTICE of Appearance by Bethany B. Schumann−McGhee on behalf of all plaintiffs (Schumann−McGhee, Bethany) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

58 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Brendan S. Thompson by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams.(LaDuca, Charles) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

59 ORDER granting 58 Motion for Leave to Appear; upon the payment of the admission fee pursuant to Rule 83.1(l) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York and registration with the Courts Electronic Case Filing system ("ECF"), Brendan S. Thompson, Esq., may appear herein on behalf of plaintiffs. Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 6/10/09.(JRA) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

60

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

By letter dated August 13, 2009, the defendants request an extension of time, until August 28, 2009, to identify and produce expert reports in this matter. Defendants represent that the plaintiffs' consent to the requested extension. The request is granted. The defendant shall identify experts and provide written reports in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2), as amended in 1993, no later than August 14, 2009 See Rule 26 of the Local Rules for the Western District of New York as amended effective December 1, 1994. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before September 14, 2009. All other dates in the December 18, 2009 scheduling order (Docket No. 56) remain in effect at this time.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 8/17/09. (JRA) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

61

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

By letter dated August 26, 2009, the defendants request a further extension of time, until September 25, 2009, to identify and produce expert reports in this matter due to an urgent medical situation involving the defendants expert's family. The defendants represent that the plaintiffs consent to the requested extension. The request is granted. The defendant shall identify experts and provide written reports in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2), as amended in 1993, no later than September 25,

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 12 of 16

09/25/2009
11/02/2009 11/02/2009 11/02/2009 11/03/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009
02/19/2010 03/15/2010

2009 See Rule 26 of the Local Rules for the Western District of New York as amended effective December 1, 1994. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before October 25, 2009. All other dates in the December 18, 2009 scheduling order (Docket No. 56) remain in effect at this time.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 9/1/09. (JRA) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

62

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

By letter dated September 24, 2009, the defendants request a further extension of time to serve expert disclosures in this matter. The request is based upon an urgent medical situation involving the defendants expert's family. The defendants represent that the plaintiffs consent to the requested extension. The request is granted. The defendant shall identify and produce its expert reports on or before October 26, 2009. The deadline to complete discovery, including expert discovery, is extended to November 24, 2009. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by January 29, 2010.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 9/25/09. (JRA) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

63 STIPULATION Extending Deadlines for Expert Discovery by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

64 RESPONSE to Discovery Request from Defendant's Expert Disclosure by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton.(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

E−Filing Notification: No proof of service. Action required: File proof of service 64 RESPONSE to Discovery Request from Defendant's Expert Disclosure by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton.(Domagalski, James) (DR) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton re 64 Response to Discovery (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

66 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton re 65 Certificate of Service, 64 Response to Discovery Corrected per Clerk's Direction (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

67

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTT

TEXT OF THE ORDER

The parties have stipulated to brief extensions of certain dates in the Scheduling Order (Docket No. 63). The modification of the Scheduling Order is approved.

So Ordered.

Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 11/6/09. (JRA) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
68 NOTICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams of Withdrawal of Appearance and Removal from ECF Notification for Attorney Bethany Schumann−McGhee (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
NOTICE: A MEETING TO SET TRIAL DATE is scheduled for 3/30/2010 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara.(DJD) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 13 of 16

03/25/2010 03/29/2010
04/13/2010 04/20/2010 04/29/2010 04/29/2010 04/29/2010
06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010

69 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of Elmer Keach in Support of Motion, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
70 TEXT ORDER. Plaintiffs filed 69 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgement. Response papers are to be filed by 4/13/2010. Oral Argument on the motion is scheduled for 4/29/2010 at 03:00 PM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Upon the oral request of counsel for plaintiffs, the 3/30/2010 Meeting to Set Trial Date is rescheduled as a Status Conference/Meeting to Set Trial Date for 4/29/2010 at 03:00 PM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on March 29, 2010. (DJD) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
71 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 69 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
72 Mediation Certification by Michael A. Brady(Brady, Michael) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
73 MOTION Provide Notice to the Class and Incorporated Memorandum by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Proposed Class Notice, # 2 Exhibit B Notice Plan, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Migliaccio, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to Oral Argument on Pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment set for 8/20/2010 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. (DJD) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held 4/29/2010 before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Oral Argument is held as to 69 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs. The Court grants the motion. The following briefing schedule is set forth: plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is to be filed by 6/4/2010; response papers to be filed by 7/16/2010; reply papers to be filed by 7/30/2010. Oral Argument is scheduled for 8/20/2010 at 09:00 AM. The Court directs plaintiffs to submit a proposed order addressing the class notification. Appearances: Pltfs − Elmer Keach; Defts − Frank Gaglione and James Domagalski (Electronic Court Recorder, Jane Kellogg.) (DJD) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File On Consent by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation in Support)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File On Consent (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
77 AFFIRMATION signed by Elmer Robert Keach, III re 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2 −− Defendants' Amended Answer, # 3 Exhibit 3 −− Decision of Court granting Class Certification, # 4 Exhibit 4 −− Defendants' Strip Search Policy, # 5 Exhibit 5 −− Memorandum from Engert to Sexton, Entitled "Strip Search Policy −− 1109", # 6 Exhibit 6 −− Dedrick Williams Deposition, Part 1, pp. 1−50, # 7 Exhibit 6 −− Dedrick Williams Dep., Part Two, pp. 51−100, # 8 Exhibit 6 −− Dedrick Williams Deposition, Part Three, pp. 101−150, # 9 Exhibit 6 −− Dedrick Williams Dep., Part 4, 151−end, # 10 Exhibit 7 −− Marquessa Page Deposition Transcript, # 11 Exhibit 8 −− Camille Smith Deposition Transcript, # 12 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Deposition, Part One, pp. 1−50, # 13 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Deposition, Part Two, pp. 51−100, # 14 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Deposition, Part Three, pp. 101−150, # 15 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Dep., Part Four, pp. 151−200, # 16 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Deposition, Part Five, pp. 201−243, # 17 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 14 of 16

06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 07/12/2010 07/15/2010 08/02/2010
08/09/2010 08/12/2010

Deposition, Exhibits, Part One, # 18 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Dep., Exhibits, Part Two, # 19 Exhibit 9 −− Niagara County (Beilein) Deposition, Exhibits, Part Three, # 20 Exhibit 10 −− Daniel Engert Deposition, # 21 Exhibit 11 −− Jason Kenney Deposition, # 22 Exhibit 12 −− Paul Curcione Deposition, # 23 Exhibit 13 −− Anthony Suess Deposition, # 24 Exhibit 14 −− Defendants' Expert Deposition)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
78 AFFIRMATION signed by Elmer Robert Keach, III re 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams Supplemental Affirmation in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 15 −− Defendants' Response to Request for Documents, # 2 Exhibit 16 −− contraband reports, Niagara county jail)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
79 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. to 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Material Fact filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
80 MEMORANDUM in Support re 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
81 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 80 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 79 Continuation of Exhibits, 77 Affirmation,,,,,,, 78 Affirmation, 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
E−Filing Notification: Incorrect event used to electronically file document. For future reference, use STATEMENT OF FACTS event. No action required. 79 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. to 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Material Fact filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (DR) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
82 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,,,, 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
83 TEXT ORDER granting 82 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Motion Hearing. Defendants'response due by 8/2/2010. Plaintiffs' reply due by 8/9/2010. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 7/15/2010. (JMB) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Rule 56 Counter−Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1 to 7 to Rule 56 Counter−Statement, # 3 Exhibit 8 to 14 to Rule 56 Counter−Statement, # 4 Affidavit of Frank T. Gaglione in Support of Cross−motion and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 5 Memorandum in Support of Cross−Motion and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
85 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Request for Adjournment of Oral Argument by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
86 TEXT ORDER: plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file a reply to their 76 motion for summary judgment and a response to defendants 84 cross motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff shall have until 8/27/2010 to file their response and reply. Defendant shall file its reply by 9/17/2010. Oral argument scheduled for 8/20/2010 is adjourned. The Court will advise the parties of a new date. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/12/2010. (JDK)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 15 of 16

08/19/2010
08/27/2010 08/29/2010 08/29/2010 08/29/2010 08/30/2010 09/17/2010
10/18/2010
01/25/2011 04/15/2011 04/19/2011
04/19/2011 07/01/2011 02/23/2012

(Entered: 08/12/2010)
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED ORAL ARGUMENT DATE. Oral Argument as to 76 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs and 84 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants is rescheduled from 8/20/2010 to 10/18/2010 at 02:00 PM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. (DJD) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
87 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Counter−Statement of Material Fact filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/29/2010)
89 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/29/2010)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 89 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 88 Response in Opposition to Motion (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/29/2010)
91 TEXT ORDER granting 87 Motion for Extension of Time to August 29, 2010 to File Responding paprs regarding defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/30/2010. (JMB) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
92 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 84 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 89 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 88 Response in Opposition to Motion, 76 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by The County of Niagara, Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held 10/18/2010 before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Oral Argument is held as to 76 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs and 84 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants. Decision is reserved. Appearances: Pltfs − Elmer Robert Keach and Nicholas Migliaccio; Defts − Frank Gaglione and James Domagalski (Court Recorder ECRO Jane Kellogg.) (DJD) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
93 TEXT ORDER granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 1/25/2011. (JMB) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE. A Status Conference is scheduled for 4/19/2011 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Counsel for plaintiffs may participate by telephone by calling 716−332−7810 on 4/19/2011 at 8:55 AM. (DJD) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held 4/19/2011 before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. Status conference is held. The Court stays the proceedings for one year pending the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case which is of a similar issue to the instant case. Further Status Conference is scheduled for 4/20/2012 at 09:00 AM. Appearances: Pltf − Elmer Keach (via telephone conference call); Deft − Frank Gaglione and James Domagalski (Court Reporter Yvonne Garrison.) (DJD) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/20/2012 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. (DJD) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/20/2012 09:00 AM before Hon. Richard J. Arcara. (DZ) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
94 NOTICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams of Change of Firm Name (Migliaccio, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

Case: 1:06-cv-00291-RJA-HBS As of: 05/10/2013 10:38 AM EDT 16 of 16

04/12/2012
04/27/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012 05/23/2012 05/23/2012 05/24/2012

95 TEXT ORDER: the status conference scheduled for April 20, 2012 is adjourned. The parties are directed to file short memoranda advising the Court of their positions regarding the effect of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, −−− S.Ct. −−−−, 2012 WL 1069092 (April 2, 2012)(No. 10−945), on the legal theories at issue and on the pending proceedings. The parties should confer among themselves in order to reach agreements regarding these matters to the extent possible and should submit joint or partially joint memoranda to the extent possible. The parties memoranda shall be due April 26, 2012. Further proceedings will be scheduled by the Court. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on April 12, 2012. (WJG) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
96 TEXT ORDER: the due date for memoranda of the parties scheduled in Text Order 95 to advise the Court of the views of the parties regarding the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012), is adjourned to May 10, 2012. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on April 27, 2012. (WJG) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
97 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report Regaring Florence Decision Until May 14, 2012 by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 97 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report Regaring Florence Decision Until May 14, 2012 (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
99 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS to 97 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report Regaring Florence Decision Until May 14, 2012. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
100 TEXT ORDER: Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report to May 14, 2012 97 is granted. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on May 10, 2012. (WJG) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
101 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 95 Terminate Hearings, Text Order,,,, Regarding Effect of Florence Decision by Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton, The County of Niagara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Domagalski, James) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
102 NOTICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 95 Terminate Hearings, Text Order,,,, Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding the Florence Decision (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 102 Notice (Other) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
104 TEXT ORDER: In light of the parties' helpful May 14, 2012 filings regarding the effect of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, the parties are directed to confer and each submit a brief statement of the motions they conclude should be filed by May 23, 2012. Issued by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on May 15, 2012. (MLM) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
105 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 104 Text Order, with Certificate of Service by Thomas Beilein, Samuel Muscarella, John Saxton, The County of Niagara. (Domagalski, James) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
106 NOTICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 104 Text Order, Submission on Proposed Motion Practice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Correspondence from Defendants, # 2 Exhibit B −−− Email Between Counsel)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marquessa Page, Camile Smith, Dedrick Williams re 106 Notice (Other) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/24/2012)