1 .LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN
M~k E. Mefin, SBN. 043849 2 Jeffrey I. SchwarzschiId, SBN. ~.92086
2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facslmile: (916)447-8336
Email: mark@markr0.~.gn.e0m

A~oraey~ for Plairxtiff~

./

6 ---o0o--

7 UNITED STATES DI~~7,~URT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIF~I~2qIA 9

10

11

ELIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of herself and ~0~e similarly ~ituated;

12

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14 V|

15

I-IUIVlBOLDT COUNTY, I-1IYMBOLDT COLrNTY SHEI:~F GARY PHILP, ]i’q HIS

16

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITII~S, HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

1.7 DEPARTMENT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHEd’S DEPUTB3S DOES 1 THROUGH 50,

.18 AND ROI~S 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

19

Defeadants.

20

21 PLMNTE?F ALLEGES:

22

INTRODUCTION

23

This is ma action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damases, and punitive damages against

2~ the HUMBOLDT COUNTY, HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHER-II~FS DEPARTMENT, 2qqA’MBOLDT

25 COUNTY SHER.WF GARY PH]LP, Individually and in His Official Capacity, HUMBOLDT

26 COUNTY SHER_~F’S DEPUTIES sued under their fictitious names as DOES 1 THROUGH 50, and

ROES 1 THROUGH 20, for violations of plaintiffs constitutional fights resulting from application of I-t’UMBOLDT County’s and the Sheriff’s policies, practices, and customs concerning the use of strip

searehe~ and visual body cavity searehe.~ in HUM:BOLDT County Jails. Plaintiff seeks an order

declaring illegal defend~t~’ policy of subjecting detainees in their custody to strip and visual body cavity searches before they axe arraigned and without havhag my reasonable swspieion that the searches

6 willbe productive of contraband.

7

Defendants’ strip search and visual body cavity search policies, practices, and customs violate.

those rights of plaintiff, and all those she represents, that are secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution ~¢l emitle plaintiff, and alt those similarly sittmted, to

I0 recover dameges under the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.5.C. § 1983). Additionally, plaintiff includes, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those she represents,

supplemental claims under Califomia state law against defendants: 1) for violation of California Penal

13 Code § 4030 which prohibits pre-arraignment strip searches of most misdemeanants and provides for

14 minimum damages of $1,000 for each iIlegal search; and 2) for violation of the Bane C~vil Right~ Act

(California Civil Code § 52 and § 52. l(b)) pursuaat.to which plaintiff and each similarly situated 16 person dealed a statutory, gt~tte, federal, or constitutional right i~ entitied to recover a minimum of

~7 $4,000 for each violation. 18

JURISDICTION

19

This action is brought parmtant to 42 U~C §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth mad Fourteeath

20 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction i~ :founded upon 28 USC §§ 1331 and

1341 (3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.

22

1. Under 28 USC § t 367(a) the Cottrt has supplemental juri~dictiors over the state cloim~

alleged herein.

24

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs.

25

26

PARTIES

3. PlaintiffELIN 9PELLMAN, and all those ,imilarly ~ituated, are, and at all material

times herein, were citizens of the United States ~d residents of the state of California who were

arrested within the period begLrming two (2) years before the filing oftJais Cornplaim, and continuing

’to ~is date, and who were subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity sem’ches at a ~OLDT

Co~rity Jail (hereinafter referrei:l to as the "HUMBOLDT County Jail"), prior to being arraigned and/or

without the defendants first having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the ~e~rcheg

8 would be productive of contraband or weapons.

4. Defendant HI.rM~OLDT COU~Y SHI~RJFF OARYPI-~P is, and at all material

10 times referred to herein, was the duIy elected Sheriffofthe HLrM-BOLDT COUNTY, responsible for

11 administering th6"Jail facilities and for making, overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices,

and customs challenged herein relating to the operation of the HUMBOLDT County Jail. He is sued

13 .in his individual and official capacities.

14

5. Defendants I-B.TMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIgS sued herein by their

fictitious r~ar~es (Does 1 through 50) are all deputies who, as part of their duties at the HUMBOLDT

16 County Jail, subjected plaintiff, and all those she represents, to pre-arraigtm£nt strip and/or visual

1"7 body cavity searches without having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the searches

18 would be productive of contraband or weapons.

19

6. At all material times mentioned herein, each of the defendants was acting under the

20 color of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulationsl policies, customs and usages of

21 the state of California, the BI_IM~OLDT COUNTY and/or the HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

22 DEPAR~T.

2~

7. Defendants whose names are not now 1,mown mud who are sued by the fictitious names

ofROE$ I through 20, are all agents and/or employees of one or another of the other nmued

2~ defendants who ordered, condoned, authorized, covered up, or were otherwise associated with the

implementation of the illegai policy and practices relating to strip searches complained of herein.

8. Defendant HUMBOLDT COUNTY is, and at all material times referred to hereto, was

2 a division of the state of California, that maintained or permitted ~m official policy or custom or 3 practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which

wrongs damaged plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, as herein alleged. Plaintiff’s allegations

against the COUNTY are based on acIs and omissions of the SHEKI:FF mad his DEPUTIES and on acts

and omission, oF persons who are COUNTY employees, and on the COUNTY’s breach of its duty to

7 protect plaintiff, End all those she represents, from the wrongful conduct of said persons

employees.

9

9. Def, ndants HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and HUMBOLDT

10 COUNTY SHER]~F GARY PHILP, in his Individual and Official Capacity: also maintained or permit-ted an official policy or custom of causing or pelznitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs

complained of herein, which wrongs dm:naged plaimiff, and all those similarly situated, as herein

13 alleged.

14

10. Class action plaintiffs axe those similarly situated who, during the period begi~.ing two

(2) years befor¢ th¢ filing of this Complaint, and continuing to this dat~, were subjected by defendmats

16 to pre-arraignment s~p and/or visual body cavity searches without defendants having, and recording

17 in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapor~.

18

19

FACTS

20

l 1. On or about September 23, 2004, plaintiffEI~ SPELLMAN (hereinafter referred to as

"plaintiff’) was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff was taken to the

22 HUMBOLDT County Jail in Eureka, Califomia, where she was coom~¢~, forty’i, anal compelled to

23 disrobe so that she was naked from the waist up in the presence of persons who were not participathlg in the search and who were of the opposite sex. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she, like all those she

26 represents, was videotaped during the complained of search, and that the videotaping of those

ACTION COM~L~.

1 subjected to the complained of searehos is a component of the defend.ant~’ strip/visual body cavity search policy, e~tom, and practice.

3

13. Within six (6) months of the aforesaid strip search, plaintiff filed a group Goverm’nent

4 Tort Claim for herself and for all persons similarly ~ituated (a copy of said claim is attached hereto as

Exhibit "A", and incorporated, herein to the extent relevant by this reference). Plaintiff s group claim

was denied on or about January 10, 2005, ~llowing the filing oft_his class action ccrmplaint on state

? statute ~d constitutional violations.

8

14. PIainfiffis informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that defendants routinely

9 follow their policy, practice, and custom of subjecting pre-arraigrmaent detainees, including plalr~fiff,

10 ~d nil those she represents, to strip and visual body cavity searches without first having, aud recordix~g

1t in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the search will be productive of coztrabmad or weapons.

12 Plair~tiff is further informed and believes, a~d therefore alleges, that defendants routinely follow their

13 policy, practice, mud custom of videotaping the complained of searches.

14

15. Plair~tiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants have the abilitY

to identify all such similarly situated plaintiffs, specifically those who, while in defendants’ custody, at 16 the HUMBOLDTCounty Jail within two (2) years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were subjected

to strip se~rehe~ and/or visual body cavity searehe~ prior to arraignment without defenda,n, ts having.

18 first, and recordilag, a reasor~able s~spicion tl~t the searches would be productive of contraband or

19 weapons.

2O

16. Defendant HIrMBOLDT COUNTY SHEI~F GARY PNTILP is personally responsible

for the pr0mulg~tion and continuation of the strip ~earch policy, pr~tice, ~d custom p~trsuan~ to

22 which plaintiff, and tlaose she represents, were subjected.

23

17. As a result of being subjected to the strip searches complained of herein, plaintiff, and

24 each oft_he persons similarly situated, suffered physical, mental~ and emotional d~stres~, invasion of

25 privacy, and violation of due proces~ of law and ~tate and federal ~tatutory and constitutional fights, 215

1 . and is entitled to recover damages according to proof but, at a minimum, $1,000 as specified in

2 California Penal Code § 4030(p) and $4,000 as specified in California Civil Code § 52 and § 52.1(b),

3

~CLA$S CLAIMS

4

18. The strip and visual body cavity searches to which plaintiff, and all those ~imilarly

5 situated, were subjected were performed pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of defendants 6 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHE1L~F GARY PH]LP, HUMBOLDT COUNTY 7 DEPARTMENT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, the individual SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES sued herein by the

8 fictitious names 1 through 50, and the individuals whose names are not now known and who are sued

9 by the fictitious nanae~ ofROES 1 through 20. The zearehe~ complained of herein were performed

10 without regard to the nature of the alleged offense for which piaintiff, and all those similarly si.tuated,

I1 had been arrested, without regard to whether or not plaintiff, or those she represents, was eligible for

12 cite and release under PenaI Code § 853.6, without regard to whether or not plaintiff, and eae2a oftho~e

13 similarly situated, was eligible for and/or was released on his or her own recognizance. Furthermore,

14 the searches complained of herein were perforr~ed without defendants having a reasonable belief that

15 the plaintiff, or any of those similarly situated, so searched possessed weapons or contraband, anal

16 those facts being articulated and recorded in .a sapervi~or:approved document. And the I7 complained of herein were performed without defendants taking reasonable precautions to make 18 certain that plaintiff, and each of those similarIy situated, was not observed by others not involved in

19 the search and/or of the opposite ~ex, Additionally, plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon

20 alleges, that a conaponent of the searches complained of herein was defendants’ videotaping of the 21 plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated.

22

19. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons simil~-ly

23 situated pursuant ~o Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20. The class is defined to include all persons who, in the period from and including two (2)

25 years prior to the filing of this Complaint, and continuing uatil thi~ matter i$ adjudicated and the

26 practices complained of herein cease, were arrested and ~tlbjected to a pre-arraigtmaent strip and/or

EIA’N ~i~’l~ka’vlAN, ~ ~1, v, I-U.rb~OLDT COI.TIY’I’Y, 1

USIPC, Ne~l~-n Dlg~ C~ ~.

visual body cavity search a~ the HLrMBOLDT County lail without defer~dants first having, and

.recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the ~eareh would be prodnetive of contrab~d or

3 weapons.

4

21. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the members of the

5 class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Plaintiff does not know the exact

6 number of class members. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereuport alleges, that there’are

7 morn than 10 persons per day who are ~gted by defmdant~ ~m~or in ~e cu.~to~y ofdefendar~t, and

8 are subjected to the ~earches complained of herein as a result of defendants’ policy, practice, and

9 custom relating to said searches.

10,

22. N accordance with Federal Rule~ of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiff is ir~forraed

ii and believes, and thereupon allege~, that there are many questions of fact common to the class

12 including, but ~aot limited to: (1) whether defendants routinely subject all persons arrested to visual

13 body ~avity searches prior to arraignment if they irtt~d such persons to be housed in tah_¢ HUMBOLDT

14 County lail; (2) whether persons are subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity searches prior to

15 arraignment without there being any reasonable Suspicion, based on specific or arficulable facts, to

16 believe any particular arre~tee has conceNed dNgs, weapor~, and/or contraband i~ b0d~ly cavities

17 which could be detected by means of a strip and/or visual body cavity search; (3) whether the strip

18 and/or visual body cavity searches arc conducted in an area of privacy so that the $earche~ cannot be

19 observecl by persons r~ot participating i~ the searches; (4) whether the strip and/or visual body cavity

20 ¯ searclae~ are videotaped and whether and under what circum~tance~ said videotapes are ~ub~equen~iy 21 viewed; and, (5) whether the strip and/or visual body cavity searche~ are rea.*onably related to

defendants’ penological interest to maintain the security of the jaiI and whether or r~ot there are less

23 intrusive methods for protecting any such interegt.

24

23. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plainti.ffis informed

25 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are m~y questions of law common to the cla~s

26 including, but are not Iimitcd to: (1) whether defendants may perform strip a~d/or visual body cavity

F..LIN $1~F.2.J_/~I~. e~ al, v, I41./M~OLDT CO~rrg~ ~t N,

searches on persons prior to their ~’r~ignment without reasonable suspicion, based on specific or

2 a~dculable f~ts, to believe my particul~ prearraig~ment d~nee h~ ¢o~oealed ~gs, weapo~ ~or eon~ab~d which would likely be ~scov~ed by a s~p ~ffor ~su~ body caviW se~eh; (2)

whe~ defen~ts may perfo~ s~p ~or visu~ body oavi~ sc~h~s on p~sons wi~out ~s~

maso~bly relating ~e use of~¢ subject se~ch to d~f~s’ penological int~es~ to m~t~ ~e sec~ of~e j~l ~d dct~i~ng if~e is a less ~n~ive me~od to protect ~at ~t~e~t; (3) wh¢~ s~p an~or visuA body cavity ~e~hes may be conducted m ~¢as where ~e se~ch cm be

obse~ed by people not,p~icipafing in the sc~ch without viola~g pl~Nffs’ Stat~ md FM~al

9 consfimtion~ rights ~d pl~fiffs’ State statum~ fi~ts; (4) whe~er or not defenders’ s~p ~e~ch

polioy ~d proscribe i~ ~n accordm¢~ wi~ ~h¢ State m~or Fed~ Constitution; (5) whe~er or not 11 defending’ policy md proced~e of videotap~g ~osc subjected to ~e compla~ed of se~ches ~olates 12 pin,tiffs’ State ~ot Federal Co~fitufional fi~t~ to p~v~y; (6) whe~ or ~ot pl~utiff~’ clams 13 ~d~ Penal Code ~ 4030 ~c bm~d by ~ pro~sions of Gov~en~ Code ~ 8~.6; rod, (7) wke~
or not defendmts have ~ i~W defense to pI~ntiffs’ cIhm~ ~d~ Civil Code ~ 52 md 52.1, md

whe~er or not ~ose c!~ms ~e actionabl~ [u a cl~s action.

16

2~. ~ accord~ce wi~ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), th~ claims of the

r~se~tative pl~ntiffis t~ical of the clas~. Pia~tiff w~ se~ched~ prior to ~~cnt, wi~out

reportable suspicion that a s~p or visual body caviW se~h would produce ~g~, w~apgns or 19 con~b~d (~d wi~out ~h¢ fa¢~s ~u~o~ing my such ~u6p~¢~o~ be~g ~icul~t~.in a sup~i~or~0 approved ~ting). Representative pl~tiffh~ ~e s~e ~tercsts ~d suff~ed ~e s~e ~ of 21 ’~jufies as all of the cl~s members. Plaintiffsclams ~osc bccausc ofdefend~t£ policy, practice, .

22 ~d custom of subjecting ~cstccs to s~p ~or visual body ca~y s¢~chcs before ~~t

~out having, ~d r¢coMing in ~fing, a reasonable suspicion that ~e se~ch wo~d be productive of 2~ con~b~d or weapons. Each cl~s member sullied ~t~ d~ages as a m~ult of berg subj~ted to a 25 s~p ~or vi~l body cavity se~ch. ~e actu~ d~agcs suffered’by ~e r~rescntafi~e pl~fiff is 26 simil~ tn t~e md ~.ouut to ~e ~mal d~agcs s~fcrcd by e~h class m~ber.

~, ~ ~. v. ~DM~O~.DT COUNTY,

1

25. In ac¢ord0mce with Federal Rule~ of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the representative

2 plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. Plaintiff s interests are consistent with

3 and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

4

26. in accordance Mth Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosccutiom of

5 separate actio~as by individual members of the class would create a risk that inconsistent or varying

6 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class would establish incompatible standards

7 of conduct for the pm’t’tes opposing the compl~nt.

8

27. N accordance with Federal Rules of CiviI Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of

9 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk ofinconsi,~tent adjudications

10 with respcc~ to individual members of the class which would, a~ a p~actical matter, substantially irapair

II or impede the interests of the other members of the class to protect their interests.

12

28. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), plaintiff is

13 kuformed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants have acted on grotmds.generally

14 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the final injtm.ctive or declaratoryrelief with

15 respect to the class as a whole.

16

29. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule" 23Co)(3), this class action is.

17 superior to other available methods for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy between

18 the parties. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the interests of members of

19 the class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, in. that most class

20 members would be unable individually to prosecute arty action at all. Plaintiff also is informed ~d .

21 believes, and thereupon alleges, that the amounts at stake for individuals are so small that separate

22 suits would be impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges; that most

23 members of the class will not be abIe to find cotmsel to represent them. Plaintiff is infor~aed and

24 believes, and thereupon alleges, that it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one forum because all

25 of the claims m’ise in the same location; i.e., theHUMBOLDT County Jail. It will prornote judicial

26

1 efficiency to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one forum, rather th~ in multiple

2 co~s,

3

30.. Plaintiff does not know the ider~tities 0fall of the class members. Plaintiffis.~formed

and beIieves, and thereupon alleges, tb_at the identities of the cla~s members may be ascertained from

5 records maintai~aed by the HUMBOLDT COUNTY and defendartt SHERIFF GARY PI-I]LP and 6 defendant HUMBOLDT COUNTY SFIER_WF’S DEPARTMENT. Plaintiffis informed and believes, 7 and thereupor~ alleges, that defendants’ records reflect ~e identities, inctud~g addresses and tel~hone

8 nmnbers, of the persons who have been held in custody in the HLrMBOLDT Cotmty Jails. Plaintiff is

9 reformed and believes, add thereupon alleges, that records of, and maintained by defendants reflect 10 who wa~ subject to a strip and/or vi$ual body cavity search, when ~e search occurred, where the

11 search occam’ed, whether any reasonable suspicion for the search existed and was recorded in a 12 supervisor-approved writing, whet~er the search was videotaped, when persons searched were

13 arraigned, and the charges on wb.i~h ~a,h persons were arrested. Plaintiff is iafo~ed and believes,

14 and tlaereapon alleges, that all of~e foregoing information is contained in defendants’ computer 15 system and that the information necessary to identify the class members, by last known addresses, and

16 the dates and reasor~s for their arrests and/or release from custody, is readily available from said

17 computer System.

18

3 I. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(e)(2)(b), class members

19 mu~t be Nmished with the best notice practicable artder the circt~.m~t~ces, includizg individual notice 20 to all memb~ who can be idetatified through re~o~a~ble effort. Plamtiffis informed a~nd believes, and 21! thereupon alleges, that defendants’ computer records contain a last known address for class members. 22 ’ Plaintiff contemplates that individual notice will be giver~ to class members at such lasl: known address

23 by first class mail.Plaintiff contemplate.~ that the notice will ir~form ¢1a~ member, of ~e following:

24

i. The pendeney of the class action a~d the issues common to the elas~;

25

ii. The nature of the action;

26

~I, IN St~I,.~MAN, et ft. v. I-fi./MBOLDI" COUNTY, N ft.

iii. Their right to "opt out" of the action within a given time, in which event they

2

wii1 not be bound by a decision rer~dered in the class action;

3

iv. Tt~eir right, if they do not "opt out," to be represented by their own cotmsel ard

4

to enter an appearance in the case; Otherwise tiaey will be represented by the

5

named class plaint[if(s) and the named class plaintiff(s)’s counsel; and

6

v. Their right, if they do not "opt out," to share in arty recove~ in favor of the

7

class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment or~ the common issues

adverse to the class.

9

COUNT ONE

(Violation of Fourth arid Fourteenth Am~dments to the U.S. Constitution

10

on behalf of Plaintiff aud all persons similarly situated)

tl

32. Defend~mts’ policies, practices, and customs regarding, the strip and visual body cavity

12 searct~es complained of herein violated plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated’s, rights trader tlae 13 Fourth Amendment to befree from unreasonable searches ~d seizures, violated plaintiffs, and all

14 ¯ ose sim_~larly situated’s, fights to due process and privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, and

directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and all those similarly ~ituated, ~ herein alleged, entitling

16 plaintiff, a~d all class members, to recover damages for said constitutional vioIations pursuant to 42

17 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffp~ays for relief, for herself and for ~11 persons $imilal’Iy situated, as

19 hereunder appe~s-

20

COUNT TWO

(C~l~for~a Star~ l~ra-uh Civil Rif~hts A~t, Civ~ C~cl~ ~§ 52 ~ma S~.A,

21

on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated)

22

33. Defenders’ policies, practices, and customs regarding the strip and visnal body cavity

23 searches complained of herein violated the rights of plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, to 24 privacy a~ secured by Article I, Section i of tlae CaIifornia Constitution and directly an~t proximately

25 damaged plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitlir~g s~id plaintiff, and

26

CLASS ACTION COlvI~LA.rrTr

1 each of those she represents, to recover a rniNmam of $4,000 each pursuant to California Civil Code §

2 52.1 and § 52, in addition to other damages.

3

WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays for relief, for herself and for all persons similarly situated, as

4 hereunder appears.

5

COUNT THREE

6

(Violation of California Penal Code § 4030,

Califomia State Urtmh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1,

7

on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persom similarly situated)

8

34. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs regarding the strip and visual body cavity

9 searches complained of herein violated fights secured to plaintiff, and all those similarly situated,

10 under Califomi~ Penal Code § 4030 and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and each of those

similarly situated, as herein aIleged, entitling plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, to recover a

I2 minimum of $1,000 each pursuant to California Penal Code § 4030(p), and to fro’thor minimum

13 damage~ of $4,000 each parsaant to California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52, in addition to other 14 damage~,

15

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief, for herself and for all pergons ~imilarly situated, as

16 hereunder appears.

’

I7 COUNT FOUR

18

(Invasion of Privacy, on behalf Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated)

19

35. By videotapir~g plaintiff, and each of thos’e she represents, while she, and each of those

20 she represents, was subjected to the searches complained of herein, defendants, and each of them, 21 violated plaintiff’s, and each of those similarly situated’s, fight t~ privacy as secured by the California

22 Sate Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and each of 23 those she represents, by causing emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

WHEREFORE. plaintiff prays for relief, for herself and for all persons similarly situated, as

25 hereunder appears. 26

ACTION ODMI~I~.INT

~ Na. --

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WNEREtFORE0 plaintiff, on behalf ofhemelf and all those similarly situated, seeks judgment

as follows: 1. For declaratory and injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarily ~d
permanently, defendants’ policies, prac’~iees, ~d cu~tome of subjecting pre-arraigrmaent detainees to

6 strip md visual body cavity searches without having a reasonable suspicion that such searcheg would

7 be productive of contraband or weapons;

2. Certification as a class actiol~ of plaintiff’s complaints concerning defendants’ policies,

practice, and customs of subjecting pre-arraignment detainees to strip and visual body cavity searches

without having a reasonable suspicion that such searches would be productive of contraband or

11 weapon~; 3.

For compensatory, general, and ~peeial damages for each representative and for each

13 member of the class of plaintiffs, as against all defendants; 4. Exemplary damages as agair~st each of the individual defendants in an amo~t suffici,nt

to deteT and to make an example of those defendants;

16

5. In addition to compensatory ~d statutory damages as allowed by law, at least $4,000.

17 for each plaintiffpursuar~t to California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52, for each violation thereof;

18

6. In addition to corapensatory and statutory damages as allowed by law, at least S1,000 ’

19 for each plaintiffp~suartt to California Penal Code § 4030; 7. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, California Civil Code § 52(b)(3),
2~ Califo~ia Civil Code § 52.1(h), California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and California Penal

22 Code ; a~d § 4030(p); and

23

2~

2~ 26

~ SPN.J.Ef.Odq, ~ st. v. I-KJM~OLDT COUN’rY. ~

1

The cost of this suit and such other reliefas the court finds just and proper.

2 DATED: February 4, 2005

Respectfally submitted,

3

4

5

BY:_.I,LAWfFFICE~OF MARK E. M[ERIN’. ’.

Mark E. Mer~

6

Attorney for Plaintiffs

7

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.

8

Respectfully submitted,

9

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MER_IN

10

11

12

Mark.E. Merin

Attorney for Plaimiffs I3

14

15

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

~_..~e 1’~- o~ 14.

EXHIBIT A

I LAW OFFICES OF MARK g. M~E.Dq Mark E. Merin, SBN. 043849 Jeffrey I- $chwarzschild, SEN. 192086 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916).443-6911 Irae~imile: (916) 447-8336 Emaih mark@mark-meri.n.eom
A~toraey~ for Claimant, and all tho~e similarly situamd

ioOo~

ELIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of herself an~t all CLASS CLAIM FILED ON BEtU~LF OF

those similarly situated;

ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED

AGAINST HUMBOLDT COUNTY,

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF GARRY

I0

Claimanta,

PtZILI%.IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ~IUS~OLDT

II

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,,

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF GARY PHILP, IN HIS

DEPUTIES DOES 1-5, AND DOES 1 TI~IROUGI-I 20, INCLUSIVE, PURSUANT

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICLAL CAPACITW, S, TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 910

HLrivIBOLDT COUNTY SHEP,2~F’S

DEPARTMENT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPUTt~S DOES 1-5, AND

DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSI-VE,

Respondenfs.

Pursum~t to, the provisions of California Govemmen~ Code Section 910, claimant, EL.IN

SPELLMAN, on behalf of h.erself and oll those similarly situated, hereby presents the Following claim:

(t) CLA ._INA_ NTS:

~0

gpellzuan, on behalf of herself and all gaose .~i~ilarly situated

DOB: May 10, 1980

7 Lmaim~a Drive

Angeles, CA 90042

c/o Mark E. Merin, Law Office of Mark E. Merin
2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916/443-6911
Facsimile: 9t 6/447-8336

P~e I ~.f.3 ..............

1 (2) DATE OF INCID.EN_T_: 2 ¯ September 23, 2004

3 (3) LOCATION WHERE.INCIDENT__O_C_C_Ug~D:

Humboldt County

5 (4) ~:

On or about September 23, 2004, Humboldt Comaty Sheriff Deputies whose names are not know known, stopped a vehicle driven by claimant within five (5) miles of Garberville and arrested her for 7 driving under the influence of alcohol. She was then transported approximately 60 miles to Eureka, where
she wins taken ~o a County f~cili~y a~d forced to disrobe so that she wa~ naked, to the w~st in the presence of male of, fleers. It also appears the forced disrobing was videotaped by Sheriff’s Deputies.

9 (5) C_LASS CLAtM

10

Claimant is informed amd believes, a~d on that basis alleges that the ~Mp ~eareh to which she was

subjected was performed pursuant to policy and procedure to which a11persons arrested on minor crimes

are similarly subjected.

12

This i, a clang claim made on behalf of all 9ersons similarly situated who were subjected to a sN9

search, prior to arraigranent, at the t-Iun~boldt County jails after having been arrested on charges not

13 involving violence, drugs and weapoas and for whom there was no stated reason~ble susloicion to believe

a ~trip search would be productive of contraband or weapons.

14

(6) VIOLATION

The requirement tha claimant remove her clothing until she was nude down to the waist constitutes 16 an illegaI, strip search which violates the Fourth Amendment to the United S~atesConstittltion as wetI as
California Penal Code § 4030. It appem’s that what claimant suffered is standing procedure and that all 17 persons similarly situated, that is af-rested on charges not involving v/olence, drags or weapons, are
routinely strip searched following their mests a~d before arraigrmaent. 18
Claimant is filing this government claim on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated. 19
(7) ’ PERSONS/ENTITIeS RESPONSIBLE:
2O
2t Humboldt County Sheriffs Deputies Does 1-5, and others whose identities are not now known.

22 (8) DAMAGES:

23

Claimant, and all persons similarly situmed on behalf of whom this group claim is submitted,

experienced a deprivation of her state statutory and eozstimtional a~d federal coa~titntional ri~ts. She

24 was humiliated, denied of privacy, mad subjected tc psychologies] and emotional distress. The strip ~earch

to which she was subjected was clearly in violation of welt ,stablished state and federal taw and therefore

25 all depatie~ and other officers and employees of Humbold, County, as wee as the ShexiffofHm’nbold~

County are liable of punitive and exemplm’y damages.

26

t

Damages are within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court or of a Federal Court having jurisdiction

over Itumboldt County.

2

The Sheriff, as ~e policy maker, is responsible for the Nanket strip search policy and the specific

3 deputies who strip ~earehed claimant mad all tho.~e similarly situated are i~er~onallytiable for the violations.

4 (9) F..rR._!SDICTI_.ON OF COURT:

5

This case, if not settled at the claim level, would be appropriately filed ha ~upeaior oourt, or in the

Umted States District Court having jn_ri~&ietion over Humboldt County.

6 DATED: October 27, 2004

Re@ectfully submitted,

7 LAW OFFICE OF MA.P-~ ~, M-~RIN

8

9

I0 Attorneys for Claimants
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

Re: Elin Spellmam et al. v. Humboldt Count-v, et al.

3

I, Karl L. Kalista, CCLS, declare:

4

I am a citizen of the United States, ov~ 18 years of age, employed in the County of Sacramento,

mud not a party to the within action; my business address is 2001 P Street, Suite 100,.Sacramento,

California 95814.

On October 27, 2004, I served the within CLASS CLAIM FILED ON I~EttALF OF ALL
PER$O:NS SIMILARLY SITUATED AGAINST tIIJMBOLDT COUNTY, HUMBOLDT COI_]N’TY $tlEIIIFF GARY PHILP, IN tIIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
I-IUMBOLDT COUNTY S~Pd(FF’S DEPARTMENT, I-I-UMBOLDT COUNTY SI:IERIFF’S
DEPUTIES DOES 1-5, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20~ It’~CLUSIVE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 910 on all parties m said action ia the following manner:

XXX BY MAIL: I a~ familiar with this company’s practice whereby the mail, affenbeing placed in a designated area, is given the appropriate postage aad is deposked in a U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento, California, during the normal coarse of business on the same day it is placed in We de~ig~ated area_ I placed a true copy of ~a/d documem, enclosed in a sealed envelope with first class postage affixed in the designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below:

BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: i caused to be personally delivered a true copy of said document to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below:

]4

BY FACSIMILE: I fazed a true copy of said document to the addressee(s) at the number(s) set

forth below; I verified that the trangmi,cgion wag reported by the fax machine as complete and

without error; thereafter, I placed amm copy in a sea.led envelope with first class postage affixed.

in the designated area tbJ: outgoing ma~l, addressed as ~et forth below:

BY OVERNIGHT P~ _A.._T_.E__C~: I placed a true copy of said document, enclosed in a

l?

sealed Federal Expre~ Lette~ em~e]ope in the designated are~ f~r outgoing Federal Expre~

deliveries, with an air bilI addressed to the indicated party(s) below:

KIMBERLY A. KERR GENERAL SERVICES DIKlgCTOR RISK MANA~EM]~NT DIVISION COUNTY OF I-U.YMBOLDT
. 825 5"n~ ST ROOM 103
EUREKA, CA 95501-1153

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true mad correct, and that ~is Declaration
wa~ executed on October 27, 2004, at ~acram~enIc,: C.~lifomia. 23

Karl L. K~ista, CCLS

 
 Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 1 of 7

1 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SBN. 043849
2 Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, SBN. 192086 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 —o0o—
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 —o0o—
10

11 ELIN SPELLMAN;

CASE NO:

12 13 v.

Plaintiff,

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

15

DEPUTY ANNE GOLDSMITH; HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

16

DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT;

17

Defendant.

18

19 PLAINTIFF ALLEGES:

20

INTRODUCTION

21

Plaintiff ELIN SPELLMAN brings this action against HUMBOLDT COUNTY

22 SHERIFF’S DEPUTY ANNE GOLDSMITH (hereinafter referred to as “GOLDSMITH”) who

23 subjected her to an unreasonable search in the Humboldt County Jail in violation of plaintiff’s

24 federal and state constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiff seeks an award of general and

25 punitive damages to compensate her for the unreasonable search.

26

Defendant’s search violated those rights of plaintiff that are secured by the Fourth and

27 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and entitle plaintiff to recover damages

28 under the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983).

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 1 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 2 of 7

1

Additionally, plaintiff includes supplemental claims under California state law against

2 defendant: 1) for violation of California Penal Code § 4030 which prohibits pre-arraignment strip

3 searches of most misdemeanants, requires that any such searches be performed by members of the

4 same sex, in an area of privacy outside the view of those not participating in the search, only after

5 being pre-approved in writing by a supervising officer, and provides for minimum damages of

6 $1,000 for each illegal search; 2) violation of the California Constitutional right to privacy (Article

7 I, Section 1); and, 3) for violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 52 and §

8 52.1(b)) pursuant to which plaintiff is entitled to recover a minimum of $4,000 for each violation.

9

JURISDICTION

10

This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and

11 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 USC

12 §§ 1331 and 1341(3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.

13

1. Under 28 USC § 1367(a) the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state

14 claims alleged herein.

15

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs.

16

PARTIES

17

3. Plaintiff ELIN SPELLMAN is, and at all material times herein, was a citizen of the

18 United States and a resident of the state of California who was arrested on or about September 23,

19 2005, taken to the Humboldt County Jail and required by defendant GOLDSMITH to remove her

20 clothes so as to expose her breasts in an area which was observed by male law enforcement

21 personnel. Plaintiff was required to expose her breasts prior to being arraigned and without the

22 defendant first having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the search would be

23 productive of contraband or weapons.

24

4. Defendant HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY ANNE GOLDSMITH is,

25 and at all material times referred to herein, was a deputy for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s

26 Department, who, as part of her duties at the Humboldt County Jail, subjected plaintiff to the

27 complained of pre-arraignment strip search in an area which was observed by male officers and

28 \\\

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 2 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 3 of 7

1 without having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the search would be

2 productive of contraband or weapons.

3

5. Defendant HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT together with

4 defendant COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT were the employers of defendant GOLDSMITH.

5

6. At all material times mentioned herein, defendant was acting under the color of law,

6 to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the state

7 of California, Humboldt County, and/or the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department.

8

FACTS

9

7. On or about September 23, 2004, plaintiff ELIN SPELLMAN (hereinafter referred

10 to as “plaintiff”) was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff was

11 taken to the Humboldt County Jail in Eureka, California, where defendant GOLDSMITH coerced,

12 forced, and compelled her to disrobe so that she was naked from the waist up in the presence of

13 persons who were not participating in the search and who were of the opposite sex.

14

8. Within six (6) months of the aforesaid strip search, plaintiff filed a group

15 Government Tort Claim for herself and for all persons similarly situated (a copy of said claim is

16 attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein to the extent relevant by this reference).

17 Plaintiff’s group claim was denied on or about January 10, 2005, and she thereafter filed a class

18 action complaint against defendant’s employer and various unnamed Sheriff Deputy defendants

19 (Spellman et al v. County of Humboldt et al. United States District Court for the Northern District

20 of California Case No. 05-00568-SBA). Plaintiff learned of the identity of the deputy who

21 performed the complained of strip search in January, 2006, and sought to amend her class

22 complaint to include said deputy (defendant GOLDSMITH) in her class action. Plaintiff’s motion

23 to amend was denied and she now brings this individual action against defendant GOLDSMITH

24 and her employer at the relevant time the HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

25 and HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

26

9. As a result of being subjected to the search complained of herein, plaintiff suffered

27 physical, mental, and emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and violation of due process of law

28 and state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, and is entitled to recover damages

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 3 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 4 of 7

1 according to proof but, at a minimum, $1,000 as specified in California Penal Code § 4030(p) and

2 $4,000 as specified in California Civil Code § 52 and § 52.1(b).

3

10. The search which defendant GOLDSMITH performed on plaintiff was conducted

4 without regard to the nature of the alleged offense for which plaintiff had been arrested, without

5 regard to whether or not plaintiff was eligible for cite and release under Penal Code § 853.6, and

6 without regard to whether or not plaintiff was eligible for and/or was released on her own

7 recognizance. Furthermore, the search complained of herein was performed without defendant

8 having a reasonable belief that the plaintiff possessed weapons or contraband and without first

9 articulating and recording in a supervisor-approved document any individualized reasonable

10 suspicion that the search would reveal weapons or contraband. Additionally, the search

11 complained of herein was performed without defendant taking reasonable precautions to make

12 certain that plaintiff was not observed by others not involved in the search and/or by members of

13 the opposite sex

14

COUNT ONE

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution )

15

16

11. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action each and every other allegation of this

17 complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.

18

12. Defendant GOLDSMITH performed the search complained of herein in violation

19 of plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and

20 seizures and in violation of plaintiff’s rights to due process and privacy under the Fourteenth

21 Amendment.

22

13. By performing the complained of search in the manner herein described, defendant

23 directly and proximately harmed plaintiff, as herein alleged, entitling plaintiff to recover damages

24 for said constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

26 \\\

27 \\\

28 \\\

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 4 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 5 of 7

1

COUNT TWO

(California State Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1)

2

3

14. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action each and everyother allegation of this

4 complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.

5

15. By conducting the complained of search in the manner described herein, defendant

6 GOLDSMITH interfered with plaintiff’s federal and state constitutional and statutory rights by

7 means of threats, intimidation, and/or coercion and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, as

8 herein alleged, entitling plaintiff to recover a minimum of $4,000 each pursuant to California Civil

9 Code § 52.1 and § 52, in addition to other damages.

10

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

11

COUNT THREE

(Violation of California Penal Code § 4030,

12

California State Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1)

13

16. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action each and every other allegation of this

14 complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.

15

17. By conducting the complained of search in the manner described herein, defendants

16 GOLDSMITH, the HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and the COUNTY OF

17 HUMBOLDT violated rights secured to plaintiff under California Penal Code § 4030 and directly

18 and proximately damaged plaintiff, as herein alleged, entitling plaintiff to recover a minimum of

19 $1,000 each pursuant to California Penal Code § 4030(p), and to further minimum damages of

20 $4,000 each pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52, in addition to other damages.

21

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

22

COUNT FOUR

23

(Invasion of Privacy)

24

18. Plaintiff incorporates into this cause of action each and every other allegation of this

25 complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.

26

19. By conducting the complained of search in the manner described herein, defendants

27 GOLDSMITH, the HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and the COUNTY OF

28 HUMBOLDT violated the rights of plaintiff to privacy as secured by Article I, Section 1 of the

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 5 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 6 of 7

1 California Constitution and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, as herein alleged.

2

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4

WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks judgment as follows:

5

1. For compensatory, general, and special damages;

6

2. Exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of

7 defendant;

8

3. In addition to compensatory and statutory damages as allowed by law, at least

9 $4,000 pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52, for each violation thereof;

10

4. In addition to compensatory and statutory damages as allowed by law, at least

11 $1,000 pursuant to California Penal Code § 4030;

12

5. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, California Civil Code § 52(b)(3),

13 California Civil Code § 52.1(h), California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and California Penal

14 Code ; and § 4030(p); and

15

6. The cost of this suit and such other relief as the court finds just and proper.

16 DATED: June 26, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

17

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

18

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”

19

BY:

Mark E. Merin

20

Attorney for Plaintiffs

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 6 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 7 of 7

1

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.

2 DATED: June 26, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

3

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

4

5 6 7 S:\WpWork\Strip Search Cases\Spellman, Elin\Goldsmith\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd

BY:

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”
Mark E. Merin Attorney for Plaintiffs

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH F:\WPWORK\MCNULTY\PLEADING\COMPLAIN.DOC

Page 7 of 7 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

USDC, Northern District, Case No. ___________

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 75 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

OAKLAND DIVISION

3 ELIN SPELLMAN,
4 Plaintiff,
5 v.
6 HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.,
7 Defendants.
8

No. C 05-0568 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 69]

9 On August 21, 2006, the defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 69]
10 requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that Spellman v.Goldsmith, et al., C 06-3956-MHP
11 is not related to Spellman v. Humboldt County, et al., C 05-0568-SBA. Both actions are now closed.
12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as moot.
13

14
IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16

February22, 2007

17

_________________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 
 Case 3:06-cv-03956-MHP Document 8 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 1

1 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SBN. 043849
2 Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, SBN. 192086 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 —o0o—
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 —o0o—
10

11 ELIN SPELLMAN;

CASE NO: C 06-03956 MHP

12

Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL BY PLAINTIFF [FRCP Rule 41(a)]

13 v.

14 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

15

DEPUTY ANNE GOLDSMITH; HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S

16

DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT;

17

Defendant.

18

19

The parties to the above-captioned matter, having resolved their differences in a mutually

20 satisfactory manner, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

21 hereby dismisses her action with prejudice in its entirety, each party to bear their own attorney’s

22 fees and costs.

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

23 DATED: October 16, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

24

TATES DISTRICT C

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

25

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”

26

IT IS SO ORDERED

BY:

27

Mark E. Merin

Attorney for Plaintiffs

28

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

ERN D ELIN SPELLMAN. v. ANNE GOLDSMIETH

Page 1 of 1
OF CNOTICE OF DISMISSAL BY PLAINTIFF

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 06-03956 MHP

 
 Spellman v. Humboldt County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 1626922 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Elin SPELLMAN, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp, In his individual and official capacities, Humboldt County Sheriff’s
Department, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Deputies Does 1 through 50, and Roes 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants.
No. C-05-00568-SBA. | June 9, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.
Nancy K. Delaney, Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze, Eureka, CA, for Defendants.
Mark E. Merin, Esq., Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA.
Opinion
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
*1 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 23, 2006. Mark E. Merin appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze, by Nancy K. Delaney, appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Having considered the papers filed and arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department is not a proper defendant as it is merely a department of the County of Humboldt. Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D.Cal.1996), quoting Stump v. Gates, 77 F. Supp 808, 816 (D.Colo.1991).
The County of Humboldt, sued herein as Humboldt County, and Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp have

presented uncontroverted evidence and plaintiff has conceded that the County’s written policy with respect to strip searches meets and exceeds constitutional standards. (Declaration of Ciarabellini and Exhibit B to Declaration.) Specifically, policy F-009 provides that:
“All strip searches and visual body cavity searches will be conducted based on the need and within legal limitations to maintain security and to prevent the introduction of weapons and contraband into the facility. Arrestees will not be arbitrarily subjected to unnecessary strip or body cavity searches.”
Nor is there any evidence presented of an unconstitutional de facto custom or policy, as plaintiff’s account, even if believed, is not sufficient to establish this, or to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard. A single incident does not establish a custom or practice for purposes of a Monell claim. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985) (“Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell ...”). Municipal liability may be established with a showing of a “long standing practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity.” Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989). The custom must be so “persistent and widespread” that it constitutes a “permanent and well-settled [municipal] policy.” Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.1996); Gellette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir.1992). The absence of any similar complaints negates any inference to be drawn from plaintiff’s account of events that such a custom or practice existed, or was widespread.
There is no basis for liability as to defendant Sheriff Philp in the absence of evidence of an underlying constitutional violation. Further, liability may be imposed on a supervisor under Section 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated in the deprivation of constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of the violations and failed to act or prevent them or (3) the supervisor implemented a policy “so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074 (1992); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989).
*2 It is uncontroverted that defendant Philp did not participate in the alleged strip search of the plaintiff, know of the alleged strip search or fail to prevent it, or
1

Spellman v. Humboldt County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

implement a constitutionally infirm policy that was the moving force behind the alleged wrongdoing.
Accordingly, the County of Humboldt and defendant Philp are entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim.
Plaintiff’s state-law claims fare no better.
Plaintiff’s claim for violation of California Penal Code § 4030 fails as a matter of law because, as discussed above, County Policy F-009 sets forth the required “reasonable suspicion” standard for strip searches. There is nothing in the policy that is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 4030.
Plaintiff’s claim under California Civil Code § 52.1 must also fail as a matter of law. This statute requires that plaintiff establish an underlying violation of a constitutional or statutory right. As discussed above, no

such violation can be established as a matter of law.
Finally, plaintiff’s claim for “invasion of privacy” under the California State Constitution is without merit. The common law tort of invasion of privacy “requires the actionable disclosure be widely publicized and not confined to a few persons or limited circumstances.” Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 27 (1994). No facts have been presented in this case which would support an actionable claim for invasion of privacy under this standard.
Accordingly, defendants County of Humboldt and Gary Philp are entitled to summary judgment as to all claims set forth in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby ordered dismissed, and the clerk is directed to close the file.
	  

2

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, ENETERM, REFSET-BZ
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05-cv-00568-SBA

Spellman v. Humboldt County et al Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Demand: $0 Case in other court: for the Ninth Circuit, 06-16311 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Date Terminated: 06/09/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Elin Spellman on behalf of herself & all those similarly situated

represented by Mark E. Merin, Esq. Law Office of Mark E. Merin 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Employment Regulation & Administration Section 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/324-8630 Email: Jeffrey.Schwarzschild@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Humboldt County

represented by Nancy K. Delaney Mitchell Brisso Delaney & Vrieze 814 Seventh Street P.O. Drawer 1008 Eureka, CA 95502 707-443-5643 Fax: 707-444-9586 Email: ndelaney@mitchelllawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...

Defendant Gary Philp Humboldt County Sheriff, in his individual & official capacities
Defendant Humboldt County Sheriff's Department

Mark E. Merin, Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy K. Delaney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin, Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy K. Delaney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin, Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/08/2005
02/08/2005 02/08/2005 02/09/2005
03/04/2005 03/07/2005

#

Docket Text

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT & Demand for Jury Trial - [Summons Issued] against Humboldt County, Gary Philp & Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, [Filing Fee: $250.00, Receipt Number 3369092]. Filed by PlaintiffElin Spellman. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2005 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2005)
Summons Issued as to Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due 6/8/2005 & Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/15/2005 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # (1) Standing Order).(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2005) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE RE CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE; COUNSEL TO RESPOND BY 3/18/05 (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2005) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
4 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Elin Spellman.. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/7/2005) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

2 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
03/10/2005
03/10/2005 03/16/2005 03/17/2005 03/18/2005
03/21/2005 04/04/2005
06/08/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/22/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Elin Spellman. Humboldt County served on 2/28/2005, answer due 3/21/2005; Gary Philp served on 2/28/2005, answer due 3/21/2005; Humboldt County Sheriff's Department served on 2/28/2005, answer due 3/21/2005. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/10/2005) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
6 Certification of Damages in Excess of $150,000.00 (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/10/2005) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
7 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/16/2005) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2005) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
9 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Judge Edward M. Chen no longer assigned to case. Signed by Executive Committee on 03/18/05. (mab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2005) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
10 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/21/2005) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
11 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 6/15/2005 03:45 P.M., via telephone. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/4/05. (lrc, ) (Filed on 4/4/2005) Modified on 4/5/2005 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2005)
12 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ; [Proposed] Order filed by Elin Spellman, Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/8/2005) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
13 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/15/2005 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 6/17/2005). (Court Reporter NOT REPORTED.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 13 Discovery due by 2/28/2006. Motions due by 4/18/2006. Jury Trial set for 6/19/2006 08:30 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 6/6/2006 01:00 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
CASE REFERRED to ADR for Early Neutral Evaluation (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
14 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/20/05. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2005) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for Settlement (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2005) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
15 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 6/22/2005. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

3 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/23/2005 07/29/2005 08/26/2005 09/01/2005 09/02/2005 09/14/2005
10/25/2005 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/28/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
6/22/2005) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 15 Settlement Conference set for 5/11/2006 at 09:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
16 ADR Clerks Notice Appointing Charles E. Farnsworth as ENE Evaluator. (bt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2005) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
Evaluator would like to hold the Pre ENE phone conference on 8/30/2005 at 2:00 p.m. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
17 STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR CONDUCTING AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION ("ENE") SESSION; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Elin Spellman, Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 9/1/2005) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: ENE Hearing set for 10/21/2005 at 10:00 AM at the Evaluator's office. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
18 ORDER, signed by Judge SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG on 09/14/2005 with regard to Stipulation To Extend The Deadline For Conducting An Early Neutral Evaluation Session. On the basis of the Stipulation, the Court ORDERED THAT the deadline for conducting an ENE session is extended to and including 10/21/2005. (sbasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2005) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
19 CERTIFICATION OF ENE Session by Charles E. Farnsworth; ENE Session held 10/21/2005; Case did not settle; ENE process is complete. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2005) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
20 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint filed by Elin Spellman. Motion Hearing set for 3/14/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Class Action Complaint)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/1/2006) Modified on 2/2/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2006)
21 Declaration of Mark E. Merin in Support of 20 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint filed byElin Spellman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s)20) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/1/2006) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
22 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint to Designate Doe Defendant filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
23 DECLARATION of Nancy K. Delaney in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint to Designate Doe Defendant filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
24 Reply to Opposition re 20 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint to Designate a Doe Defendant filed byElin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

4 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/14/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
25 Declaration of Mark E. Merin in Support of 20 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint Exhibits 1 & 2 filed byElin Spellman. (Related document(s)20) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Elin Spellman re 24 Reply to Opposition, 25 Declaration in Support (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
27 Proposed Order re 20 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint (Revised) by Elin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/1/2006) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
28 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint by Humboldt County, Gary Philp. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/2/2006) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. Motion Hearing set for 4/18/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/10/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
30 Declaration of Melinda Ciarabellini in Support of 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Related document(s)29) (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/10/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
31 Declaration of Nancy K. Delaney in Support of 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Related document(s)29) (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/10/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
32 Declaration of Nancy K. Delaney (Part 2) in Support of 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Related document(s)29) (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 3/10/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
33 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/14/2006 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 3/14/2006) re 20 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint filed by Elin Spellman,. (Court Reporter DIANE SKILLMAN.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/14/2006) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
34 Memorandum in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed byElin Spellman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
35 DECLARATION of Mark E. Merin in Opposition to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed byElin Spellman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s)29) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

5 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
03/28/2006 04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/14/2006 04/21/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 05/05/2006 05/08/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Elin Spellman re 34 Memorandum in Opposition, 35 Declaration in Opposition, (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
37 Reply Memorandum re Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 4/4/2006) Modified on 4/5/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2006)
38 Proposed Order re Motion for Summary Judgment by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 4/4/2006) Modified on 4/5/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2006)
39 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication: Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2006 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/14/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2006) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
40 STIPULATION re 39 Order Setting Hearing on Motion ; Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; [Proposed] Order by Elin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 4/21/2006) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
41 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 20 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2006) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
42 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication: Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2006 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/24/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2006) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 6/13/2006 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2006) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
43 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY - PLEASE IGNORE***
STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Conference and Pre-Trial Filings; [Proposed] Order by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 5/1/2006) Modified on 5/2/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/2/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2006)
44 STIPULATION (Corrected) to Continue Settlement Conference and Pre-Trial Filings; [Proposed] Order by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 5/1/2006) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
45 ORDER RE OVERDUE PAPERS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 5/5/2006. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
46 ORDER DENYING Stipulation filed by Humboldt County Sheriff's Department,, Gary Philp,, Humboldt County,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/8/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2006) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

6 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
05/11/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006
06/08/2006 06/09/2006
06/09/2006 06/26/2006 06/28/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
47 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held. Case did not settle. (Date Filed: 5/11/2006). (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/11/2006) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
48 NOTICE by Elin Spellman of Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
49 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM - Defendants' Pre-Trial Disclosures by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 5/19/2006) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
50 TRIAL BRIEF by Elin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/24/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2006)
51 Witness List by Elin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/24/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2006)
52 Proposed Voir Dire by Elin Spellman. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/24/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2006)
53 NOTICE by Elin Spellman Plaintiff's Designation of Discovery Excerpts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
54 Proposed Form of Verdict by Elin Spellman. (Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) (Filed on 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/24/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2006)
55 Proposed Jury Instructions by Elin Spellman. (Special Jury Instructions). (Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) (Filed on 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/24/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2006)
56 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/23/2006 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 5/23/2006) re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, Gary Philp, Humboldt County,. (Court Reporter DIANE SKILLMAN.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/23/2006) Modified on 5/26/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2006)
57 Proposed Order Granting Summary Judgment by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 6/8/2006) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
58 ORDER by Judge Armstrong granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2006) Modified on 7/17/2006 (lrc, COURT STAFF).****** THIS ORDER FILED IN ERROR. CORRECT ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON 7/17/06***** (Entered: 06/09/2006)
59 JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 6/9/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2006) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
60 BILL OF COSTS by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 6/26/2006) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
61 BILL OF COSTS (Withdrawal of) by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 6/28/2006) (Entered: 06/28/2006)

7 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/30/2006 07/07/2006 07/17/2006
07/17/2006
07/19/2006 07/25/2006 08/07/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/14/2006 08/21/2006 08/21/2006
08/21/2006
10/03/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
62 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 59 Judgment, Terminated Case, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Elin Spellman. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 4412914. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2006) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re [62] Notice of Appeal (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2006) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
63 CORRECT ORDER re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication filed by Humboldt County Sheriff's Department,, Gary Philp,, Humboldt County,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/9/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2006) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
64 TRANSCRIPT Designation and Ordering Form by Elin Spellman for proceedings held on 5/23/06, 3/14/06, C/R: Diane Skillman, re [62] Notice of Appeal(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2006)
65 CLERK'S NOTICE to Plaintiff's Counsel re: Failure to E-File regarding manually filed document 64 (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2006) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
66 CLERK'S NOTICE RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2006) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
USCA Case Number 06-16311 for the Ninth Circuit for [62] Notice of Appeal. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2006) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 03/14/06 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Court Reporter: Diane E. Skillman.. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2006) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
68 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 05/23/06 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Court Reporter: Diane E. Skillman. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2006) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
Certificate of Record Mailed to USCA re appeal [62] Notice of Appeal. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2006) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
69 MOTION for Reconsideration (Request for Leave to File) filed by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 8/21/2006) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
70 Declaration of Nancy K. Delaney in Support of 69 MOTION for Reconsideration (Request for Leave to File) filed byHumboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Related document(s)69) (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 8/21/2006) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
71 Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Related Case Determination by Humboldt County, Gary Philp, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department. (Delaney, Nancy) (Filed on 8/21/2006) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
72 ORDER of USCA: The assessment conference originally scheduled for 09/22/06 is rescheduled to 09/28/06 at 2:30 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

8 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
10/17/2006 10/25/2006 10/26/2006 02/22/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?880248962789782-L_3...
10/3/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2006)
Received Motion to Dismiss Appeal submitted to the USCA by Appellant Elin Spellman. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2006) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
73 MANDATE of USCA: Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted, as to [62] Notice of Appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees on appeal. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/27/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
74 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/27/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
75 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG DENYING as moot 69 Motion for Reconsideration (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2007) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/21/2007 08:17:05

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 4:05-cv-00568-SBA 0.48

9 of 9

6/21/2007 10:15 AM

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?888067176687148-L_3...

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-03956-MHP

Spellman v. Goldsmith et al Assigned to: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Elin Spellman
V. Defendant Anne Goldsmith Defendant Humboldt County Sheriff's Department Defendant County of Humboldt

Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Date Terminated: 10/24/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Employment Regulation & Administration Section 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/324-8630 Email: Jeffrey.Schwarzschild@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin, Esq. Law Office of Mark E. Merin 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

6/21/2007 11:04 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?888067176687148-L_3...

Date Filed 06/27/2006
06/27/2006
06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/30/2006 07/25/2006 08/25/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/24/2006

#

Docket Text

1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT; Demand for Jury Trial against Anne Goldsmith, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, County of Humboldt (Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt number 3387140.). Filed byElin Spellman. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/30/2006 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2006)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/16/2006. Case Management Conference set for 10/23/2006 04:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2006) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
Summons Issued as to Anne Goldsmith, Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, County of Humboldt. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2006) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2006) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
3 NOTICE by Elin Spellman of Related Cases (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/30/2006) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
4 CLERK'S NOTICE RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2006) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Elin Spellman. Service waived by Anne Goldsmith waiver sent on 8/8/2006, answer due 10/10/2006; Humboldt County Sheriff's Department waiver sent on 8/8/2006, answer due 10/10/2006; County of Humboldt waiver sent on 8/8/2006, answer due 10/10/2006. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 8/25/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
6 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff [FRCP Rule 41(a)] by Elin Spellman (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Elin Spellman re 6 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff [FRCP Rule 41(a)] (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
8 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/24/2006. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2006) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/21/2007 08:57:58

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

2 of 3

6/21/2007 11:04 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?888067176687148-L_3...

Description:
Billable Pages:

Docket Report
1

Search Criteria:
Cost:

3:06-cv-03956-MHP 0.08

3 of 3

6/21/2007 11:04 AM