Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSALETY BARNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-4437 TEH

ORDER VACATING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ March 8, 2010 joint case management conference

statement and construes Defendants’ comments as a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration based on the February 9, 2010 en banc decision in Bull v. City & County of

San Francisco by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, — F.3d —, 2010

WL 431790. That decision, which held the following, clearly constitutes a change in the

law:

We agree with the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit that the

rights of arrestees placed in custodial housing with the general

jail population “are not violated by a policy or practice of strip

searching each one of them as part of the booking process,

provided that the searches are no more intrusive on privacy

interests than those upheld in the Bell case,” and the searches are

“not conducted in an abusive manner.” Powell, 541 F.3d at 1314;

cf. Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir.2008)

(upholding searches of arrestees intermingled with general

population of a corrections facility, but not those awaiting bail,

and stating that when an arrestee is kept in a holding cell the

“obvious security concerns inherent in a situation where the

detainee will be placed in the general prison population are

simply not apparent”). We therefore overrule our own panel

opinions in Thompson and Giles.

Bull, 2010 WL 431790, at *13 (citing Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (en

banc) and referring to Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989), and

Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)). This Court relied on Giles in

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

analyzing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and reconsideration following the

overruling of Giles would therefore be appropriate. See Sept. 11, 2009 Order at 4-5 (quoting

Giles for the proposition that “arrestees for minor offenses may be subjected to a strip search

only if jail officials have a reasonable suspicion that the particular arrestee is carrying or

concealing contraband or suffering from a communicable disease”). 

In addition, the parties discussed Powell in their class certification briefing. Plaintiffs,

for example, asserted that: “The fact-intensive nature of the Fourth Amendment balancing

test in strip search cases has been noted and followed by many courts, with the exception of

Powell. Powell, however, remains the lone outrider among all circuits that have considered

the question, and it has been widely criticized by courts in other circuits.” Reply at 1

(citation omitted). Given the Ninth Circuit’s explicit agreement with Powell in Bull,

Plaintiffs’ statement is no longer valid. However, as the Court explained in its order granting

class certification, “[t]he legality of [the challenged strip search] policy, as well as whether

individualized reasonable suspicion is a defense to liability or a limitation on damages, are

common issues that predominate in this case.” Nov. 3, 2009 Order at 6. This would appear

to remain true even following Bull, but the Court nonetheless grants Defendants leave to

address the class certification order, as well as the summary judgment order, in their motion

for reconsideration.

Finally, the Court takes note of Plaintiffs’ request to conduct additional discovery. 

Although the Court does not now rule on this request, it advises Plaintiffs that they will bear

a heavy burden of convincing the Court that such a request is reasonable, given that this case

was filed six years ago and Plaintiffs are already on their third attempt at finding a suitable

class representative. The parties shall address Plaintiffs’ request in their briefing on the

motion for reconsideration.

In accord with all of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants may file

a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s summary judgment and class certification orders.

This motion shall be filed on or before April 5, 2010, and noticed for hearing in compliance

with Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The briefing schedule and page limits shall be governed by the

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

3

Civil Local Rules. Because no further case management is necessary at this time, the

March 15, 2010 case management conference is hereby VACATED.

To avoid any confusion, this order does not vacate the case management conference in

the related case, Barnett v. City of Lafayette, Case No. C04-5365 TEH. Those parties shall

appear before the Court on March 15, 2010, at 1:30 PM, as previously ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/11/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3