Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00568/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00568-4/pdf.json

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

---

________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

0

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Nancy K. Delaney, SBN 70617 

William F. Mitchell, SBN 159831 

Nicholas R. Kloeppel, SBN 186165 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, DELANEY & VRIEZE 

Attorneys at Law 

814 Seventh Street 

P. O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Tel: (707) 443-5643 

Fax: (707) 444-9586 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of herself 

and all those similarly situated; 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

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. 

CASE NO: C-05-00568-SBA 

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 58 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

1

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

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, 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 58 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

2

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

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). 

 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 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. 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 58 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

3

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

 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. 

DATED: 6/9/06 

______________________________________ 

 HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 58 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 4