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, CA 95814 Telephone: 916/443-6911
4 Facsimile: 916/447-8336 5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7

—o0o—

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

—o0o—

11 JASMINE TAGGART, a minor, by and

CASE NO:

12

through her Guardian Ad Litem, her custodial

parent, Barbara Perry; on behalf of

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13 themselves and all those similarly situated,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

Plaintiffs,

15 vs.

16 SOLANO COUNTY; SOLANO COUNTY

CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER GEMMA 17 GROSSI, in her individual and official

capacity; SOLANO COUNTY JUVENILE 18 HALL SUPERINTENDENT GLADYS

19

MOORE, in her individual and official capacity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 150,

20

Defendants.

21

22 PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE:

23

INTRODUCTION

24

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

25 SOLANO COUNTY, SOLANO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER GEMMA GROSSI,

26 in her individual and official capacity, SOLANO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

27 SUPERINTENDENT GLADYS MOORE, in her individual and official capacity; and DOES 1

28 THROUGH 150 (persons sued herein by their fictitious names) for violations of plaintiffs’

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1 constitutional rights resulting from application of SOLANO COUNTY’s policies, practices, and

2 customs concerning the use of strip searches and visual body cavity searches in the SOLANO

3 COUNTY Juvenile Detention Center. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated,

4 seeks an order declaring illegal defendants’ policy of subjecting juvenile detainees to strip and visual

5 body cavity searches before such detainees have appeared at a detention hearing and without having

6 any reasonable suspicion that the searches will be productive of contraband.

7

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

8 violate the rights of plaintiff, and each of those persons similarly situated, secured by the Fourth and

9 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and entitles plaintiff, and all of those similarly

10 situated, to recover damages under the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983).

11

Additionally, plaintiff includes claims and a prayer for damages under California state law

12 against individual defendants for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §

13 52.1(b)) pursuant to which she is, and each of those persons similarly situated are, entitled to recover

14 a minimum of $4,000 for each violation of rights secured to them by the Constitution or laws of the

15 state of California and the Constitution or laws of the United States, and for violation of California

16 Penal Code section 4030’s prohibition of pre-detention hearing strip-searches, pursuant to which

17 plaintiff is, and each of those persons similarly situated are entitled to recover minimum damages

18 of $1,000 and attorneys’ fees.

19

JURISDICTION

20

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

21 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1331 and 1341(3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.

23

2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

24 state claims, which are made on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

25

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

26

PARTIES

27

4. Plaintiff JASMINE TAGGART, like all those similarly situated, is, and at all material

28 times herein, was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of California who was

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1 arrested while a juvenile and who was subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity searches at

2 SOLANO COUNTY’s Juvenile Detention Center, prior to appearing at a detention hearing and/or

3 without the defendants first having a reasonable suspicion that the search would be productive of

4 contraband or weapons. She was born on November 22, 1988.

5

5. Defendant SOLANO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER GEMMA GROSSI

6 is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for administering SOLANO

7 COUNTY’s juvenile detention facilities and for making, overseeing, enforcing, and implementing

8 the policies, practices, and customs challenged herein relating to the operation of SOLANO

9 COUNTY’s Juvenile Detention Center. Defendant GROSSI’s role in making, promulgating,

10 overseeing, enforcing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged herein are

11 a direct and proximate cause of the damages claimed by plaintiffs. Defendant GROSSI is sued in her

12 individual and official capacities.

13

6. Defendant SOLANO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL SUPERINTENDENT GLADYS

14 MOORE is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for assisting in the

15 administration and overseeing the operation of SOLANO County’s juvenile detention facilities and

16 for assisting in making, overseeing, enforcing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs

17 challenged herein relating to the operation of SOLANO COUNTY’s Juvenile Detention Center.

18 Defendant MOORE’s role in making, promulgating, overseeing, enforcing, and implementing the

19 policies, practices, and customs challenged herein are a direct and proximate cause of the damages

20 claimed by plaintiffs. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.

21

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that defendants sued herein by

22 their fictitious names (DOES 1 through 150) are SOLANO COUNTY Probation Officers and/or

23 other persons employed by the defendant SOLANO COUNTY who, as part of their duties at the

24 SOLANO COUNTY Juvenile Detention Center, subjected plaintiff, and all those similarly situated,

25 to pre-detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavity searches without first having a reasonable

26 suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons. Plaintiff is not currently

27 aware of the true names and identities of those sued herein as DOES 1 through 150, but will amend

28 this complaint to include such persons’ real names once said names are made available.

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

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

2 color of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages

3 of the State of California, SOLANO COUNTY, and/or the Solano County Probation Department.

4

9. Defendant SOLANO COUNTY is, and at all material times referred to herein, was,

5 a division of the state of California, that maintained or permitted an official policy, custom, or

6 practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which

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

8 against the COUNTY are based on acts and omissions of the CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, the

9 JUVENILE HALL SUPERINTENDENT, and their officers, and on acts and omissions of persons

10 who are COUNTY employees, and on the COUNTY’s breach of its duty to protect plaintiff, and all

11 those similarly situated, from the wrongful conduct of said persons and employees.

12

10. Defendants SOLANO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER GEMMA

13 GROSSI, in her individual and official capacity, and SOLANO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL

14 SUPERINTENDENT GLADYS MOORE, in her individual and official capacity, also created,

15 maintained, enforced, and/or permitted an official policy or custom or practice causing the

16 occurrence of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which wrongs damaged plaintiff, and all

17 those similarly situated, as herein alleged.

18

11. Class action plaintiffs are those similarly situated juveniles who have not yet reached

19 adulthood or who have turned 18 within two years of the filing of this complaint and who were

20 subjected by defendants to pre-detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavity searches without

21 defendants having a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or 22 weapons.

23

FACTS

24

12. On or about October 27, 2003, plaintiff JASMINE TAGGART, a minor, was picked

25 up as a runaway and transported to the SOLANO COUNTY Juvenile Hall and there, prior to a

26 detention hearing, pursuant to defendants’ blanket policy and practice, was subjected to visual body 27 cavity searches in violation of California Penal Code § 4030, the state constitution’s guarantee of 28 the right of privacy, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1 the Bane Act (California Civil Code § 52.1).

2

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants had no

3 reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual body cavity search of plaintiff would result in the discovery

4 of contraband or weapons.

5

14. On or about September 17, 2004, plaintiff file a government Tort Claim with

6 SOLANO COUNTY, on behalf of herself and the class she seeks to represent, describing her claim

7 arising out of being strip searched at the SOLANO COUNTY Juvenile Hall. A copy of her claim

8 is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. The claim was denied as a late claim on October 19, 2004. On

9 February 23, 2005, the Solano County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling that “[t]he petition

10 for relief from the claims filing requirements is granted as to Petitioner JASMINE TAGGART and

11 as to those persons in the proposed class whose alleged injuries arose on or after the date Petitioner’s

12 claim arose (October 27, 2003), but excluding anyperson who was not a minor during the entire time

13 that their claim could have been timely presented.” Unopposed, that tentative ruling became the

14 final ruling of the Solano County Superior Court on plaintiff’s petition for relief from the

15 government claim filing requirements.

16

15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants routinely

17 follow their policy, practice, and custom of subjecting pre-detention hearing juvenile detainees,

18 including plaintiff, to strip and visual body cavity searches, without having a reasonable suspicion

19 that the searches will be productive of contraband or weapons.

20

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants have the ability

21 to identify all such similarly situated plaintiffs, specifically those who are still juveniles or who were

22 juveniles within two years of the filing of this complaint and who, while in defendants’ custody at

23 the SOLANO COUNTY Juvenile Detention Facility, were subjected to strip searches and/or visual

24 body cavity searches prior to appearing at a detention hearing without defendants first having a

25 reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons and/or after

26 having been strip searched without reasonable suspicion were thereafter strip searched repeatedly

27 without there being an opportunity to acquire contraband or weapons which might be discovered

28 during further strip searches.

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

17. Defendants GROSSI and MOORE and defendants DOES 1 through 10 are jointly and

2 severally personally responsible for the promulgation, enforcement, and continuation of the strip

3 search policies, practices, and customs pursuant to which plaintiff herein, and the persons in the class

4 plaintiff purports to represent, were subjected to pre-detention hearing strip searches, and by which

5 plaintiff and the class plaintiff purports to represent were harmed.

6

18. Defendants DOES 11 through 150 are personally responsible for strip searching

7 plaintiff, and others similarly situated, prior to a detention hearing without reasonable suspicion that

8 a strip search would be productive of contraband or weapons in violation of state and federal

9 statutory and constitutional law; and/or, strip searching plaintiff, and those she seeks to represent,

10 repeatedly without there being an opportunity to acquire contraband or weapons after a strip search

11 based on reasonable suspicion.

12

19. As a result of being subjected to the searches complained of herein, plaintiff and all

13 those similarly situated have suffered physical, mental, and emotional distress, invasion of privacy,

14 and violation of due process of law and federal and state statutory and constitutional rights, and are

15 entitled to recover damages according to proof, including exemplary damages.

16

CLASS CLAIMS

17

20. The strip and visual body cavity searches to which plaintiff, and each of those

18 similarly situated, was subjected were performed pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of

19 defendants, and each of them. The searches complained of herein were performed without regard

20 to the nature of the alleged offense for which plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, had been

21 arrested, without regard to whether or not plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, was eligible 22 for release under Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 628 et seq. Furthermore, the searches complained

23 of herein were performed without defendants having a reasonable belief that plaintiff, or those

24 similarly situated, possessed weapons or contraband, or that there existed facts supporting a 25 reasonable belief that the searches would produce contraband.

26

21. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly

27 situated pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28 \\\

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

22. The class is defined to include all persons who are currently juveniles or who reached

2 the age of majority within two years of filing of this complaint, and who were arrested and subjected

3 to a pre-detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavity search at SOLANO COUNTY’s Juvenile

4 Detention Facility without defendants having a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be

5 productive of contraband or weapons.

6

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

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

8 number of class members. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are

9 more than 25 persons per day who are detained by defendants and/or in the custody of defendants

10 and subjected to the searches complained of herein as a result of defendants’ policy, practice, and

11 custom relating to said searches. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that there

12 are thousands of persons in the proposed class.

13

24. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiff is informed

14 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are many questions of fact common to the class

15 including, but not limited to: (1) whether defendants routinely subject all juveniles arrested to visual

16 body cavity searches prior to appearance at a detention hearing; (2) whether persons are subjected

17 to visual body cavity searches prior to detention hearings without there being any reasonable

18 suspicion, based on specific or articulable facts, to believe any particular arrestee has concealed

19 drugs, weapons, and/or contraband in body cavities which could be detected by means of a visual

20 body cavity search; (3) whether the visual body cavity searches are conducted in an area of privacy

21 so that the searches cannot be observed by persons not participating in the searches, or whether the

22 visual body cavity searches are conducted in open areas and/or areas monitored byvideo surveillance

23 equipment so that those being searched maybe observed by persons not participating in the searches;

24 (4) whether strip searches are performed repeatedly, such that following one strip search, a juvenile

25 is strip-searched again even though there was no opportunity for the juvenile searched to acquire

26 contraband or weapons; and, (5) whether the visual body cavity searches are reasonably related to

27 defendants’ penological interest to maintain the security of the juvenile detention facility and

28 whether or not there are less intrusive methods for protecting any such interest.

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

25. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiff is informed

2 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are many questions of law common to the class

3 including, but are not limited to: (1) whether defendants may perform visual body cavity searches

4 on juveniles prior to their detention hearings without reasonable suspicion, based on specific or

5 articulable facts, to believe any particular detainee has concealed drugs, weapons and/or contraband

6 which would likely be discovered by a visual body cavity search; (2) whether defendants may

7 perform visual body cavity searches on juveniles without first reasonably relating the use of the

8 visual body cavity search to defendants’ penological interest to maintain the security of the juvenile

9 detention facility and determining if there is a less intrusive method to protect that interest; (3)

10 whether visual body cavity searches may be conducted in areas where the search can be observed

11 by people not participating in the search without violating plaintiff’s Federal and State constitutional

12 rights; (4) whether defendants may perform repetitious strip searches without the juvenile searched

13 having had an opportunity to acquire contraband or weapons; and, (5) whether or not defendants’

14 strip search policy, custom, and procedure is in accordance with the laws of the State of California

15 and the State and Federal Constitutions.

16

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

17 representative plaintiff is typical of the class. Plaintiff was subjected to strip and visual body cavity

18 searches, prior to her detention hearings, without reasonable suspicion that strip or visual bodycavity

19 searches would produce drugs, weapons or contraband. Representative plaintiff has the same

20 interests and suffered the same type of injuries as all of the class members. Plaintiff’s claims arose

21 because of defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of subjecting arrestees to strip and/or visual body

22 cavity searches prior to detention hearings without having, and recording in writing, a reasonable

23 suspicion that the search would be productive of contraband or weapons. Plaintiff’s claims are based

24 upon the same legal theories as the claims of the class members. Each class member suffered actual

25 damages as a result of being subjected to a strip or visual body cavity search. The actual damages

26 suffered by the representative plaintiff is similar in type and amount to the actual damages suffered

27 by each class member, in that each member of the class is entitled to minimum damages of $1,000

28 under Penal Code Section 4030(p) and $4,000 under Civil Code Section 52(a).

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

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

2 plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. The representative plaintiff’s interests

3 are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

4

28. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions

5 of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that inconsistent or

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

7 standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class.

8

29. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions

9 of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent

10 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a practical matter,

11 substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members of the class to protect their

12 interests.

13

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

14 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants have acted on grounds generally

15 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the final injunctive or declaratory relief with

16 respect to the class as a whole.

17

31. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), this class action

18 is superior to other available methods for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy

19 between the parties. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the interests of

20 members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, in that

21 most class members would be unable individuallyto prosecute any action at all. Plaintiff is informed

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

23 separate suits would be impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that

24 most members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiff is informed

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

26 because all of the claims arise in the same location; i.e., SOLANO COUNTY. It will promote

27 judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one forum, rather than in

28 multiple courts.

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

32. Plaintiff does not know the identities of all of the class members. Plaintiff is

2 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the identities of the class members may be

3 ascertained from records maintained by defendant SOLANO COUNTY, its Probation Department,

4 and defendants GROSSI and MOORE. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges,

5 that defendants’ records reflect the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of the

6 persons who have been held in custody in the SOLANO COUNTY Juvenile Detention Facility.

7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that records maintained by defendants

8 reflect who was subjected to a strip and/or visual body cavity search, when the search occurred,

9 where the search occurred, whether any reasonable suspicion for the search existed, when persons

10 searched appeared at detention hearings, and the charges on which such persons were arrested.

11 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that all of the foregoing information is

12 contained in defendants’ computer system and that the information necessary to identify the class

13 members, by last known addresses, and the dates and reasons for their arrests and/or release from

14 custody, is readily available from said computer system.

15

33. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(c)(2)(B), class members

16 must be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual

17 notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. Plaintiff is informed and

18 believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants’ computer records contain a last known address for

19 class members. Plaintiff contemplates that individual notice will be given to class members at such

20 last known address by first class mail. Plaintiff contemplates that the notice will inform class

21 members of the following:

22

i. The nature of the action;

23

ii. The definition of the class certified;

24

iii. The class claims and issues;

25

iv. That a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member

26

so desires;

27

v. That the court will exclude from the class any member who requests

28

exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded; and,

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

vi. The binding effect of a class judgment on class members.

2

COUNT ONE

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on Behalf of Plaintiff

3

and All Persons Similarly Situated and Against All Defendants and Each of Them)

4

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, to the

5 extent relevant, as if fully set forth.

6

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

7 searches complained of herein violated the rights of plaintiff, and the rights of each of those similarly

8 situated, under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, violated

9 the rights of plaintiff, and the rights of each of those similarly situated, to due process and privacy

10 under the Fourteenth Amendment, and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and each of those

11 similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitling plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, to recover

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

13

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

14 prays for relief as hereunder appears.

15

COUNT TWO

16 (Violation of the California Civil Code § 52.1, on Behalf of Plaintiff, and All Persons Similarly

Situated, and Against Defendants GROSSI and MOORE and the Individual Defendants

17

Fictitiously Named Who Strip Searched Plaintiff, and Others Similarly Situated)

18

36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, to the

19 extent relevant, as if fully set forth.

20

37. By requiring plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, to submit to pre-detention

21 hearing visual body cavity searches without first having reasonable suspicion that such searches 22 would be productive of weapons or contraband, recording such reasonable suspicion, and having

23 such searches approved in writing by a supervisor prior to conducting such searches; and/or by 24 conducting visual body cavity searches in areas where the searches were viewed by persons who 25 were not participating in the searches, defendants, and each of them, have coerced and interfered

26 with plaintiff’s, and those she represents, California Constitutional Right to Privacy (Article I, 27 Section 1) and Statutory Rights (Penal Code section 4030, which prohibits pre-detention hearing 28 strip searches of juveniles charged with minor offenses and misdemeanors, without reasonable

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 11 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1 suspicion, recorded in writing and approved by a supervisor).

2

38. Plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, was harmed by defendants’ coercion

3 and interference with her, and each of those similarly situated’s, aforementioned constitutional and

4 statutory rights.

5

39. By using coercion to interfere with plaintiff’s aforementioned constitutional and

6 statutory rights, and the constitutional and statutory rights of all those similarly situated, defendants,

7 and each of them, have violated the California Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1).

8

40. Defendants’ violations of the Bane Act makes them liable to each plaintiff for

9 damages up to a maximum of three times the amount of each plaintiff’s actual damages, but in no

10 event less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), together with any attorney’s fees and costs that may

11 be determined by the court.

12

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

13 prays for relief as hereunder appears.

14

COUNT THREE

15

(Violation of California Penal Code Section 4030 on Behalf of Plaintiff,

and All Persons Similarly Situated, and Against All Defendants, and Each of Them)

16

17

41. Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, to the

18 extent relevant, as if fully set forth.

19

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

20 searches complained of herein violated California Penal Code Section 4030, and directly and

21 proximately damaged plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitling

22 plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, to recover damages for said constitutional violations

23 pursuant to Penal Code § 4030(p) of no less than $1,000..

24

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

25 prays for relief as hereunder appears.

26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1

COUNT FOUR

2

(For Exemplary Damages on Behalf of Plaintiff, and All Persons Similarly Situated,

and Against Defendants GROSSI and MOORE in their individual capacity and

3

All Individual Fictitiously Named Defendants, and Each of Them)

4

43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, to the

5 extent relevant, as if fully set forth.

6

44. Plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated, was a minor at the time defendants

7 subjected them to the humiliating, degrading, and unlawful strip searches complained of herein.

8 Defendants exploited the young age of plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, to coerce plaintiff,

9 and the members of the class she represents, to comply with their unlawful demands. Defendants’

10 conduct was oppressive, malicious, and done in complete disregard of the well-established rights of

11 plaintiff, and all those similarly situated; and, therefore plaintiff, and each of those similarly situated,

12 is entitled to recover, in addition to actual damages, damages to make an example of and to punish

13 defendants, and each of them.

14

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

15 pray for relief as hereunder appears.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

18 seek judgment as follows:

19

1. For declaratory and injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarilyand

20 permanently, defendants’ policies, practices, and customs of subjecting pre-detention hearing

21 juvenile detainees to strip and visual body cavity searches without having a reasonable suspicion, 22 which is recorded in writing and approved by a supervisor, that such searches would be productive

23 of contraband or weapons;

24

2. Certification of the action as a class action;

25

3. For compensatory, general, and special damages for each representative and for each

26 member of the class of plaintiffs, as against all defendants;

27

4. For enhanced minimum damages under the California Bane Act for each violation

28 of the federal and state constitutional and statutory rights of plaintiff, and each of those she

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 13 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

1 represents;

2

5. Exemplary damages as against each of the individual defendants in an amount

3 sufficient to deter and to make an example of those defendants;

4

6. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, California Penal Code § 4030(p),

5 and California Civil Code §§ 52 et seq.; and,

6

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

7 A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY DEMANDED.

8 DATED: April 21, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

9

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

10

“/s/ - Mark E. Merin”

11

BY:

12

Mark E. Merin

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

14

S:\WpWork\Strip Search Cases\JV SS\Taggart, Jasmine\Pleadings\Class Action Complaint.wpd

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JASMINE TAGGART, et al. v. SOLANO COUNTY, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14 -

USDC, Eastern District, Case No. ___________________

 
 1 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849
2 2001 P Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814 3 Telephone: 916/443-6911
Facsimile: 916/447-8336 4 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

7

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 099180 350 University Avenue, Suite 200

8 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: 916/929-1481

9 Facsimile: 916/927-3706

E-Mail: tcassidY@pswdlaw.com

10 Attorneys for Defendants
11

-000-
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

15

-000-

16 JASMINE TAGGART, a minor, by and

CASE NO: CIV.S.05-00783 RRB GGH

through her Guardian Ad Litem, her custodial

17 parent, Barbara Perry; on behalf of

ORDER GRANTING SETTLEMENT

themselves and all those similarly situated, 18

AND DISMISSAL OF ACTION

19

Plaintiffs,

20 vs.

21

SOLANO COUNTY; SOLANO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER GEMMA

22 GROSSI, in her individual and official
capacity; SOLANO COUNTY JUVENILE

23 HALL SUPERINTENDENT GLADYS

MOORE, in her individual and official

24 capacity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 150,

COMPLAINT FILED: TRIAL DATE:

April 21, 2005 Not Set

25

Defendants.

26

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING from the joint motion of the parties for approval of the

27 Stipulation ofSettlement, this Court hereby approves the Stipulation of Settlement. No notice must

28 be given to any group of persons of this settlement.

J]\@§'Y7t{21f"'(Vilrjt PAGE I al. v. SOLJ\NO COON I Y'[iik't5pOSED] ORDER GRANTING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF AcY?8~' Eastern Dlstnct, Case No. Clv .S.05- IS3 RRBbbH

1

Based on the written materials on file and good cause appearing therefor:

2

a.

The Settlement is approved;

3

b. The Complaint is dismissed; and

4

c.

The claims of Plaintiff Jasmine Taggart are dismissed with prejudice.

5

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 DATED: July 30,2007

9

lsi Ralph R. Beistline

HONORABLE RALPH R. BEISTLINE

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

J]\@§'Y7t{21f"'(Vilrjt PAGE 2 al. v. SOLJ\NO COON I Y'[iik't5pOSED] ORDER GRANTING SET-l1.EMENT AND DISMISSAL OF AcY?8~' Eastern Dlstnct, Case No. Clv .S.05- IS3 RRBbbH

 
 Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 3325752 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
Jasmine TAGGART, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, her custodial parent, Barbara
Perry, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SOLANO COUNTY; Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi, in her individual and official capacity; Solano County Juvenile Hall
Superintendent Gladys Moore, in her individual and official capacity; and Does 1 Through 150,
Defendants.
No. CIV-S-05-0783DFLGGH. | Dec. 6, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, Mark E. Merin, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Terence John Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
LEVI, J.
*1 Plaintiff Jasmine Taggart brings this action on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated against defendants Solano County (the “County”), Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi (“Grossi”), Solano County Juvenile Hall Superintendent Gladys Moore (“Moore”), and Does 1 through 150 for civil rights violations arising from the use of strip searches at the Solano County Juvenile Detention Center (the “Center”). Taggart seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Penal Code § 4030, and California Civil Code § 52.1.
Defendants move to dismiss the state law claims on the following grounds: (1) Taggart’s state law claims were not timely presented; (2) California Civil Code § 52.1 does not authorize a private citizen to bring a representative action; and (3) the California Government Code shields all defendants from liability.1 For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

1

Defendants do not move to dismiss the Section 1983

claims.

I.
Taggart was fourteen years old in October 2003 when she was picked up as a runaway and transported to the Center. (Compl. ¶ 12.) She alleges that upon her arrival at the Center, she was strip searched in violation of California Penal Code § 4030. (Id.) Taggart reported the illegal strip search to her mother in August 2004. (Opp’n at 3.)
Taggart presented her claim and an application for leave to present a late claim to the Solano County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) on September 15, 2004. (Id.) On October 19, 2004, the Board sent Taggart a letter denying her application to present a late claim. (Id. at 4.)
Following the Board’s rejection of her application to present a late claim, Taggart petitioned the state court for relief from the claim presentation requirement. (Id.) The state court granted Taggart’s petition on February 23, 2005. (Id.) Taggart filed her complaint on April 21, 2005. (Id.)
II.
On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964). Claims may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Defendants have demonstrated that even under this liberal standard, Taggart’s state law claims for damages cannot survive.
A. State Law Claims for Damages The California Tort Claims Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810 et seq.) (“CTCA”) prescribes the process for bringing a claim for damages against a public entity in California. The CTCA requires that, before filing suit, an individual seeking to recover in tort against a public entity must present her claim to the entity “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” Cal. Gov’t Code
1

Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

§§ 905, 911.2, 945.4. If the claimant fails to present her claim within six months of the accrual date, the claimant can apply to the public entity for leave to file a late claim. Id. § 911.4. If the public entity denies the application, the claimant can petition a court for relief from the claim presentation requirement. Id. § 946.6. If the court grants the petition, the claimant then must file the complaint within thirty days of the court’s order, otherwise the action is time-barred. Id. § 946.6(f); Mandjik v. Eden Township Hosp. Dist., 4 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1498, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 (1992) (“The 30-day time limit set forth in section 946.6, subdivision (f), is a statute of limitations.”); Todd v. Los Angeles, 74 Cal.App.3d 661, 664-66, 141 Cal.Rptr. 622 (1977) (court barred action brought more than thirty days after plaintiff obtained relief under Section 946.6 despite minority of claimant and negligence of attorney); Tuolomne Air Serv. v. Turlock Irrigation Dist., 87 Cal.App.3d 248, 251-52, 150 Cal.Rptr. 809 (1978) (court granted demurrer against plaintiff who failed to file complaint within thirty days of order granting relief under Section 946.6).
*2 Defendants argue that Taggart’s state law claims are time-barred because she did not present them to the County within six months of the date her cause of action accrued and she failed to file the complaint within thirty days of the state court’s order granting her petition. (Mot. at 4.) Taggart contends that her state law claims are timely because she presented them in accordance with the CTCA and she filed her complaint within two years of the date her cause of action accrued. (Opp’n at 5-11.) Taggart is mistaken.

Cal.Rptr. 837, 491 P.2d 421 (1971); Cain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 62 Cal.App.3d 310, 314-15, 132 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1976). Under this doctrine, the accrual date for a cause of action is the date “the plaintiff knows, or should know, all material facts essential to show the elements of [the] cause of action.” Neel, 6 Cal.3d at 190, 98 Cal.Rptr. 837, 491 P.2d 421.
Taggart claims that the delayed-discovery doctrine should be applied here because she was too young to know that what had been done to her was illegal. (Opp’n at 6-8.) To support this assertion, she cites Curtis T. v. County of Los Angeles, 123 Cal.App.4th 1405, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 (2004). (Id.) In Curtis T., a guardian ad litem brought a claim against Los Angeles County on behalf of an 8-year old child who had been molested at age five. 123 Cal.App.4th at 1412-23, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 208. Although the injury occurred three years before the guardian presented the child’s claim to the public entity, the California Court of Appeal held that the claim was timely. Id. at 1422-23, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 208. Applying the delayed-discovery doctrine, the court found that the claim accrued on the date the child’s guardian learned about the incident. Id. However, because the California Supreme Court declined to apply the delayed-discovery doctrine in John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948 (1989), the Court of Appeal stressed that its decision was limited to situations where, “given his youth, ignorance, and inexperience,” a plaintiff can truthfully allege “that he lacked a real awareness, until his mother’s discovery of the alleged molestation, that what happened to him between the ages of five and eight was wrong.” Id. at 1409, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948.2

1. Taggart Did Not Present a Timely Claim to the County Taggart was required to present her claim to the County within six months of the date her cause of action accrued. Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2. Taggart presented her claim to the County in September 2004, almost eleven months after she was searched at the Center. (Id. at 3, 150 Cal.Rptr. 809.) However, Taggart argues that her claim is timely because her cause of action did not accrue on the date she was strip searched. (Id. at 6, 150 Cal.Rptr. 809.) Instead, she contends that it accrued in August 2004 when she notified her mother about the strip search. (Id. at 6-8, 150 Cal.Rptr. 809.) Based on this reasoning, Taggart concludes that her claim met the six-month limitations period set forth in Section 911.2. (Id.)
Taggart bases her argument on the “delayed-discovery doctrine.” (Id.) Generally, a tort claim accrues on the date of the injury. Soliman v. Philip Morris, Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir.2002). However, the date of accrual may toll in certain situations that are subject to the delayed-discovery doctrine. See Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfund, 6 Cal.3d 176, 190, 98

2

Unlike actions against private parties, the statute of

limitations for a minor’s claim against a public entity is

not automatically tolled until the minor reaches the age

of majority. See Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 352(b).

*3 John R. involved a 14-year old boy who was molested by a teacher. 48 Cal.3d at 442, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948. The boy did not report the event to his parents until after the claim presentation period had elapsed. Id. at 443, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948. The lower court held that the plaintiff’s claim was timely under the delayed-discovery doctrine. Id. at 444, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Id. It stated that the applicability of the delayed-discovery theory of accrual “raised a serious question in our minds ... on the facts of this case.” Id. It declined to affirm the Court of Appeal’s approach and applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel instead. Id.
Examining the facts of this case through the lens of John R. and Curtis T. reveals that the delayed-discovery doctrine does not apply to Taggart’s claim. Not only has
2

Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

the California Supreme Court shown a reluctance to apply the doctrine to claims brought on behalf of a minor against a public entity, but, even if the holding of Curtis T. were the law in California, it would not toll Taggart’s accrual date.
Taggart does not state that she delayed reporting the strip search to her mother because she lacked a real awareness that what happened to her was “wrong” as that term is used in Curtis T. Instead, she decided not to notify her mother because she did not know that the searches were illegal and she “was embarrassed and humiliated by the strip search procedure.” (Opp’n at 3.) Being unaware that an action is illegal is quite different from being too young to comprehend that an action is wrong. Because Taggart does not allege that, at the time of the strip search, she was too young to comprehend the material facts constituting her cause of action, and because she does allege that she was embarrassed and humiliated by the search, the delayed-discovery doctrine is inapplicable.3 Therefore, Taggart’s claim accrued when she was strip searched.

present her claim within six months of its accrual is not a bar because the County did not reject her claim in writing and she filed her complaint within two years of the date her cause of action accrued. She relies on language in § 945.6(a)(2) which states: “If written notice is not given in accordance with section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action.” She also cites Jenkins v. County of Contra Costa, 167 Cal.App.3d 152, 213 Cal.Rptr. 126 (1985), to support this proposition. Jenkins is inapplicable here. In that case, the claimant presented a timely claim to the public entity. 167 Cal.App.3d at 156, 213 Cal.Rptr. 126. Therefore, the claimant’s petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement was unnecessary. Id. Moreover, § 945.6 begins “except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6.” By this language the 30 day period in § 946.6 takes precedence over the two year period in § 945.6(a)(2). Finally, the County did not ignore plaintiff’s filing. Once it had denied her request to file out of time, no further action by the County was called for. The County’s failure to reach the merits of an untimely claim does not convert an untimely claim into a timely one.

3

Curtis T. is further distinguishable on its specific facts:

the injury occurred to a very young child and was

inflicted in the presence of an adult foster parent. See

Curtis T. 123 Cal.App.4th at 1411-12, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d

208.

The CTCA required Taggart to present her claim to the County within six months of the date her cause of action accrued. Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2. Taggart failed to do so. Therefore, her September 2004 claim was untimely.
However, as described above, the CTCA provides a process for obtaining leave from the claim presentation requirement. Taggart initiated this process by applying for leave to present a late claim. The County denied her application. Taggart petitioned the state court for relief from the presentation requirement. On February 23, 2005, the state court granted Taggart’s petition. (Id. at 4, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 208.) At that point, Taggart had thirty days to file her complaint. Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6(f). Taggart filed her complaint on April 21, 2005, several weeks after the 30-day deadline. Had Taggart filed her complaint within the 30-day window established by the CTCA, then her failure to present a timely claim would not have barred her suit against the County. But because Taggart did not timely present her state law claims to the County and because, having initiated the process for relief from the claim presentation requirement, she failed to follow through with a timely filing, her state law claims must be dismissed.4 See Todd 74 Cal.App.3d at 664-66, 141 Cal.Rptr. 622.

4

Taggart makes the further argument that her failure to

2. Claims That Are Barred Against a Public Entity Are Barred Against Its Employees *4 Section 950.2 states that “a cause of action against a public employee ... for injury resulting from an act or omission in the scope of employment as a public employee is barred if an action against the employing public entity for such injury is barred.” Taggart’s claim against the County is barred because she failed to comply with the CTCA. Therefore, under the settled law of California, Taggart’s claims for damages against the individual public employees must be dismissed. See Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 838, 129 Cal.Rptr. 453, 548 P.2d 1125 (1974) (holding that a claimant must present a timely claim to the public entity before bringing a tort action against the entity or its employee).
B. Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief The claim presentation requirement of the CTCA applies to “all claims for money and damages.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 905. However, it does not apply to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Minsky v. Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 113, 121, 113 Cal.Rptr. 102, 520 P.2d 726 (1974). Therefore, Taggart’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief under California Civil Code § 52.1 is not barred, even though she failed to timely present her claim to the County.
Defendants argue that, even if the claims are not barred by the CTCA, they are immune to suit under California Government Code §§ 815.2, 818.2, 820.2, 820.8, 821,
3

Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

844.6. This argument fails because none of these sections applies to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 814; Rodriguez v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 89 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1138 (N.D.Cal.2000). Therefore, defendants are not shielded from Taggart’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under these statutes.
C. Representative Actions Under California Civil Code § 52.1 Taggart seeks to recover damages under California Civil Code § 52.1 on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated. (Compl.¶ 21.) Defendants argue that individuals are not authorized to bring a representative action under that section. (Mot. at 12.) Taggart contends that a class action is permissible because all class members have standing to sue under Section 52.1, and class actions are a procedural device for joining real parties in interest. (Opp’n at 23.)
Section 52.1(b) provides:
Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise of the

enjoyment of the right or rights secured.
Although neither party cites a case directly on point, a plain reading of the statute reveals that Section 52.1(b) does not encompass class actions. The statute specifies that an individual may bring a civil action “on his or her own behalf.” In addition, Section 52.1(a) authorizes the Attorney General, district attorneys, and city attorneys to bring claims “in the name of the people of the State of California against a person who interferes with the exercise or enjoyment of the rights of an individual or individuals.” Thus, the legislation addresses representative actions but only provides for such actions under Section 52.1(a), not Section 52.1(b). Because the language and structure of the statute reveal that Section 52.1(b) does not authorize a representative action, the Section 52.1(b) class claim is dismissed. Taggart’s individual claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 52.1(b) survives.
III.
*5 For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss Taggart’s state law claims for damages and her class claim under Section 52.1 is GRANTED and defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims for declaratory and injunctive relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

4

 
 Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 737017 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
Jasmine TAGGART, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, her custodial parent, Barbara
Perry, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SOLANO COUNTY; Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi, in her individual and official capacity; Solano County Juvenile Hall
Superintendent Gladys Moore, in her individual and official capacity; and Does 1 Through 150,
Defendants.
No. CIVS05-0783 DFL GGH. | March 20, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, Mark E. Merin, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Terence John Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
LEVI, J.
*1 Plaintiff Jasmine Taggart brings this action on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated against defendants Solano County (the “County”), Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi (“Grossi”), Solano County Juvenile Hall Superintendent Gladys Moore (“Moore”), and Does 1 through 150 for civil rights violations arising from the use of strip searches at the Solano County Juvenile Detention Center (the “Center”). Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings or summary adjudication on Taggart’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.
I.
Taggart was fourteen years old in October 2003 when she was picked up as a runaway and transported to the Center.

(Compl. ¶ 12 .) She alleges that upon her arrival at the Center, she was strip searched in violation of rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.)
II.
Defendants argue that Taggart’s § 1983 claims fail as a matter of law because Grossi and Moore are state policymakers shielded by the Eleventh Amendment and, as a result, neither they nor the County are subject to suit under § 1983. In the alternative, defendants argue that the claims against Grossi and Moore must be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity.
A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity if Grossi and Moore were acting on behalf of the State when they implemented the strip search policy at the Center. McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997). In their papers, defendants highlight several California statutes which indicate that Grossi and Moore could be state actors who are immune from § 1983 liability. Taggart responds by citing numerous statutes and cases that support the opposite conclusion.
Importantly, neither party discussed several facts that could be crucial to making this determination, such as which entity oversees the implementation of intake policies at the Center, who approves these processes before they are implemented, and to whom Grossi and Moore report regarding the effectiveness of their policies at the Center. Because state law does not clearly indicate whether Grossi and Moore act on behalf of the State or the County when establishing policies at the Center, the court will refrain from ruling on this issue until the parties develop additional facts. As a result, the court denies defendants’ claim for Eleventh Amendment immunity without prejudice to its renewal at a later date and invites defendants to reassert this claim after conducting sufficient discovery.
B. Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Grossi and Moore are shielded from suit in both their personal and official capacities by the doctrine of qualified immunity. As government officials, Grossi and Moore are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533
1

Taggart ex rel. Perry v. Solano County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
*2 The record is not developed enough to decide this issue. The constitutionality of the search will depend in part on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding Taggart’s strip search. For example, the case may be very different depending on whether Taggart was to be released to the general population or was held in a cell for release to her parents. Without this information, the court is not in the position to decide whether Grossi and Moore are entitled to qualified immunity. As a result, the court denies defendants’ claim for qualified immunity without prejudice to its renewal at the soonest appropriate time.

III. For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

2

 
 .2 CMlECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

CIVIL, CLOSED
u.s. District Court
Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00783-RRB-GGH

Taggart v. Solano County et al Assigned to: Judge Ralph R. Beistline Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows Cause: 28: 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 0412112005 Date Terminated: 07/3012007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Jasmine Taggart guardian ad litem Barbara Perry

represented by Mark E. Merin 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 TERMINATED: 1111612006

v.
Defendant Solano County

represented by Terence John Cassidy Porter Scott, APC 350 University Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 929-1481 x316 Fax: (916) 927-3706

lof7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

Defendant Gemma Grossi Solano County ChiefProbation Officer
Defendant Gladys Moore Solano County Juvenile Hall Superintendent

Email: tcassidy@porterscott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin (See above for address)
represented by Terence John Cassidy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin (See above for address)
represented by Terence John Cassidy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 0412112005
0412112005
0412112005
0412112005 0412112005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT class action against all defendants, filed by Jasmine Taggart.
-
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Class Action Complaint)(Merin, Mark)
Modified on 412212005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0412112005)
2 NOTICE of Civil Cover Sheet by Jasmine Taggart re 1 Complaint filed by Jasmine
-
Taggart, Civil Case Cover Sheet. (Merin, Mark) Modified on 412212005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0412112005)
3 PETITION to APPOINT Guardian Ad Litem ad Litem and [Proposed] Order by
-
Jasmine Taggart. (Merin, Mark) Modified on 412512005 (Krueger, M). (Entered: 0412112005)
RECEIPT number 2048776 for $250.00 for civil case filing fee from Mark E Merin. (Marcotte, D) (Entered: 0412112005)
-4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Solano County, Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi, Solano County Juvenile Hall Superintendent Gladys Moore* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *Mark E Merin* *Law Office of Mark E Merin* *2001 P Street, Suite 100* *Sacramento CA 95814*. (Marcotte, D) (Entered: 0412112005)

20f7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

0412112005 0412512005 06/0712005
0611412005 0612812005 0612912005 08/0512005
08/0512005 0811712005 0812212005

5 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms
-
# ~ VDRP Forms) (Marcotte, D) (Entered: 0412112005)
-6 ORDER signed by Judge David F. Levi on 4122105 ORDERING that the petition
to appoint Barbara Perry as guardian ad litem for plaintiff l GRANTED.
(Krueger, M) (Entered: 0412512005)
-7 MOTION to DISMISS Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 2(b)(6); Memorandum ofP's & A's by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. Motion Hearing set for 711312005 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (DFL) before Chief Judge David F. Levi.
(Attachments: # 1 Notice ofMotion# ~ Req for Judicial Notice# l Exhibit A to
Defs Req for Judicial Notice)(Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 6/812005 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 06/0712005)
-8 AMENDED NOTICE (first) of Motion to Dismiss by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. Motion Hearing set for 812412005 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (DFL) before Chief Judge David F. Levi. (Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 611712005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0611412005)
10 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Solano County Counsel,Genna
-
Grossi,Gladys Moore. (Servantes, G) Modified on 71712005 (Servantes, G). (Entered: 0612912005)
9 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Jasmine Taggart. Solano County
-
served on 511812005, answer due 61712005; Gemma Grossi served on 511812005, answer due 61712005; Gladys Moore served on 511812005, answer due 61712005. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0612912005)
11 OPPOSITION re 7 MOTION to DISMISS Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 2(b)(6);
-
Memorandum ofP's & A's. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeffrey I.
Schwarzschild# ~ Exhibit 1 & 2 to Declaration of Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild)(Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) Modified on 8/512005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0810512005)
12 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Jasmine Taggart in re 11
-
Memorandum/Response in Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A
through I)(Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/0512005)
13 REPLY to pltfs opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Cassidy, Terence)
-
Modified on 811912005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0811712005)
MINUTE ORDER: Based on a review of the briefs, the court anticipates granting the motion to dismiss for the following state law claims: (1) all claims against Solano County because they are time barred under Cal. Govt Code Sec 946.6(f) and Solano County is immune under Cal. Govt Code Sec 844.6; (2) the Cal. Civ. Code Sec 52.1 claim for damages against Solano County Chief Probation Officer Gemma Grossi ("Grossi"), Solano County Juvenile Hall Superintendent Gladys Moore ("Moore"), and the unnamed dfts 1 through 10 because they are immune under Cal. Govt Code Sec 820.2; and (3) the class claim under Sec 52.1 because Cal. Civil Code Sed 52.1 (b) does not authorize representative actions. The court anticipates denying the motion to dismiss for the following state law claims: (1) the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under Cal. Civ. Code Sec 52.1 against Grossi, Moore, and the unnamed dfts because the claimed immunities do

30f7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

0812212005 0812212005 0812212005 0812312005 0812412005
12/0812005
1212012005 0111712006 0112712006
02/0312006

not reach these forms of relief; and (2) the Cal. Penal Code Sec 4030 claim against Grossi, Moore, and unnamed dfts because that section evidences the legislature's intent to withdraw applicable immunities. The court will order the matter submitted on the briefs unless a party shows good cause for hearing oral argument on the motion. Good cause must be shown before 4:00 PM today, 812212005, by contacting Harry Vine at (916) 930-4091 and by electronic filing as required by local rule. (Vine, H) Modified on 8/3012005 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0812212005)
14 NOTICE by Jasmine Taggart ofPlaintiffs Request for Hearing on Defendants'
-
Motion to Dismiss (Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) (Entered: 0812212005)
-15 AFFIDAVIT re 14 Notice (Other) Affidavit ofMark E. Merin, Attorney for Plaintiff Taggart, in Support of Good Cause for Hearing Oral Argument on Defendants'Motion to Dismiss by Jasmine Taggart. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0812212005)
-16 NOTICE by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore ofRequest for Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 0812212005)
MINUTE ORDER: Argument on the pending motion to dismiss shall remain calendared for hearing on August 24,2005 at 10:00 a.m. (TEXT ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 0812312005)
MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge David F. Levi, Chief Judge:
MOTION HEARING held on 812412005 re 1 MOTION to DISMISS; arguments
were heard and the matter was ordered submitted. Plaintiffs Counsel M. Merin; J. Schwarzschild present. Defendants Counsel K. Nourot present. Court Reporter: K. Watkins. (Vine, H) (Entered: 0812412005)
-17 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER dfts' motion to dismiss Taggart's state law claims for damages and her class claim under Section 52.1 is GRANTED; and dfts' motion to dismiss the state law claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief is DENIED 1, ~ signed by Judge David F. Levi on 12/612005.
(Reader, L) (Entered: 12/0812005)
18 ANSWER to COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Solano County, Gemma
-
Grossi, Gladys Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Demand for Jury Trial)(Cassidy,
Terence) (Entered: 1212012005)
19 MINUTE ORDER requiring joint status report. (Due 2/3106) (Vine, H) (Entered:
-
0111712006)
-20 MOTION for JUDGMENT on the Pleadings and/or Summary Adjudication by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. Motion Hearing set for 31112006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (DFL) before Chief Judge David F. Levi.
(Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities # ~ Req for Jud Notice# 1. Stmt of
UMF's)(Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 1012612006 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0112712006)
-21 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. (Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 02/0312006)

40f7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

02/0812006 0211512006 0211512006 0211512006 0212212006 0212212006 0212212006 03/0212006
0312012006 04/0412006 0912712006 0912912006

MINUTE ORDER: GOOD CAUSE APPEARING it is ordered that the parties shall submit an updated joint status report within 15 days of the court's ruling on the pending motions now scheduled for March 1, 2006. (TEXT ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 02/0812006)
-22 MEMORANDUMIRESPONSE in OPPOSITION re 20 Motion for Judgment/
Summary Adjudication. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# ~ Affidavit A# 1. Appendix
B#:1: Appendix C)(Merin, Mark) Modified on 211612006 (Donati, J). (Entered: 0211512006)
-23 DECLARATION of Mark E. Merin in Support of20 Motion for Judgment/Summary Adjudication. (Merin, Mark) Modified on 211612006 (Donati, J). (Entered: 0211512006)
-24 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Jasmine Taggart re 22 Memorandum/Response in Opposition to Motion, 23 and Declaration ofMark E. Merin (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0211512006)
MINUTE ORDER: The hearing date and time re 20 Motion for Judgment, now calendared for 31112005 is reset for 31212006 at 01 :30 PM in Courtroom 7 (DFL) before Chief Judge David F. Levi. (TEXT ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 0212212006)
25 REPLY to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or
-
Summary Adjudication. (Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 212412006 (Reader, L). (Entered: 0212212006)
26 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys
-
Moore in re 25 Reply to Response to Motion IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS/SA. (Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 0212212006)
MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge David F. Levi: MOTION HEARING held on 31212006 re 20 MOTION for JUDGMENT filed by Solano County, Gladys Moore, Gemma Grossi. Arguments were heard and the matter was ordered submitted for decision. Plaintiffs Counsel M. Merin present. Defendants Counsel T. Cassidy present. Court Reporter: D. McKinnon. (Vine, H) Modified on 1012612006 (Reader, L). (Entered: 03/0212006)
27 MEMORANDUM of OPINION and ORDER signed by Judge David F. Levi on
-
3117/06 DENYING 20 Motion for Judgment. (Donati, J) (Entered: 0312012006)
28 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore.
-
(Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 04/0412006)
-29 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Extend the Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class Certification by Jasmine Taggart, Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. Attorney Merin, Mark E. added. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0912712006)
30 STIPULATION and ORDER 29 signed by Judge David F. Levi on 912912006
-
ORDERING That Pltfs shall file their Motion for Class Certification on or before 111212007.(Reader, L) (Entered: 0912912006)

50f7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

1012412006 1111412006 1111512006 0111212007 0111712007 0611112007 0611212007 0611312007 07/0312007 0710312007 0712612007
07/3012007

31 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order for Disclosure of
-
Juvenile Records by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. (Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 1012612006 (Reader, L). (Entered: 1012412006)
32 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G.
-
Hollows on 11114/06 ORDERING the disclosure of Juvenile Records. (See order for Details) (Donati, J) (Entered: 1111412006)
33 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL by all plaintiffs. Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild
-
terminated. (Merin, Mark) Modified on 1111612006 (Donati, J). (Entered: 1111512006)
-34 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Extend the Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class Certification by Jasmine Taggart. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0111212007)
35 STIPULATION and ORDER 34 for extension signed by Judge David F. Levi on
-
1117/07. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification on or before 5111/07.(Marciel, M) (Entered: 0111712007)
MINUTE ORDER: The parties shall e-file an updated joint status report on or before June 29,2007. (TEXT ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 0611112007)
36 ORDER by Chief Judge David F. Levi; Due to the Order of Designation of Judge
-
Ralph R. Beistline to serve in the Eastern District, this action is REASSIGNED from Judge David F. Levi to Judge Ralph R. Beistline for all further proceedings. (Cayo, A) (Entered: 0611212007)
-37 NOTICE of Change of Firm Name by Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. (Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 611412007 (Manzer, C). (Entered: 0611312007)
-38 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Jasmine Taggart. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 07/0312007)
39 MINUTE ORDER: re 38 Status Report and report of settlement. (Vine, H)
-
(Entered: 07/0312007)
-40 MOTION to DISMISS: Joint Motion for Order Approving Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal of Complaint by Jasmine Taggart, Solano County, Gemma Grossi, Gladys Moore. Attorney Merin, Mark E. added. (Attachments: #
1 Declaration Declaration of Mark E. Merin in Support of Joint Motion for Order
Approving Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal of Complaint# ~ Exhibit
Exhibits 1-4 to Declaration of Mark E. Merin# 1. Proposed Order Proposed Order
Granting Settlement and Dismissal of Action)(Merin, Mark) (Entered: 0712612007)
-41 ORDER GRANTING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF ACTION signed by Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 7/30107. CASE CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 07/3012007)

PACER Service Center

60f7

4/21/20086:57 PM

Live 3.1.2 CMlECF - U. S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?10 1173944069499-L_1 ...

I
I
PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

Transaction Receipt I

04/21/2008 16:57:24 I

Client

IWU0079 I Code:

1clearinghouse

1

Docket Search
LJlcost: Report Criteria:

12:05-CV-00783-RRB-GGHI

11 0.40

1

70f7

4/21/20086:57 PM