Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00783/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00783-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 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. 

CIV-S-05-0783 DFL GGH

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

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

Case 2:05-cv-00783-RRB-GGH Document 27 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

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 (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

Case 2:05-cv-00783-RRB-GGH Document 27 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

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 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001). 

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

Case 2:05-cv-00783-RRB-GGH Document 27 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

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.

Dated: 3/17/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00783-RRB-GGH Document 27 Filed 03/20/06 Page 4 of 4