Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02790/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02790-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHATOIAN et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 COUNTY OF MARIN et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C04-02790 MJJ

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #45). Plaintiffs

have filed an Opposition (Doc. #51), and Defendants have filed a Reply (Doc. #54). After reviewing

the parties’ briefs, the Court has identified certain critical deficiencies in the parties’ arguments which

necessitate additional briefing before the Court can resolve the pending Motion. 

As an initial matter, both parties agree that Plaintiffs’ federal 1983 claims hinge on Plaintiffs’

ability to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978). Particularly, Plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) that Plaintiffs possessed a constitutional right of

which they were deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to

deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the moving force

behind the constitutional violation. Id. at 694. While the parties recognize this as the controlling

framework, their discussions diverge as to exactly what policies, practices, or customs form the basis

of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Specifically, Defendants’ Motion is premised on the constitutionality of the Marin County Jail’s

Case 3:04-cv-02790-MJJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 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

written policies concerning strip searches and safety cell placement. Briefly stated, Defendants contend

that neither of the written policies violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Interestingly,

notwithstanding the existence of these two written policies, Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs’

cannot establish municipal liability under Monell because Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence of

a policy, practice, or custom or that such policy, practice or custom was the “moving force” behind the

County deputies’ alleged unconstitutional conduct. Given the fact that Defendants’ appear to be arguing

that the County Jail staff acted pursuant to, and in accordance with, the written policies regarding strip

searches and safety cell placement, it is difficult to square these two components of Defendants’ Motion.

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs wholly ignore the written policies, and instead identify three

informal policies, customs, and practices that they claim led to the purported constitutional violations.

Namely, Plaintiffs proffer the following: (1) suicidal detainees must remove their clothes after being

placed in the safety cells; (2) deputies will forcibly remove the clothes of suicidal detainees who fail to

remove their clothes; and (3) male deputies will assist in the removal of clothes of suicidal detainees

who do not voluntarily disrobe. According to Plaintiffs, these practices violate their Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Lining up Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Opposition, it appears that there is a disconnect

between the parties as to the basis of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Specifically, Defendants are moving for

summary judgment based on their written policies, and Plaintiffs are defending (and presumably seek

to proceed with their claims) based on informal, unwritten policies relating to strip searches and safety

cell placement of suicidal and/or violent detainees. Based on this divergence, the Court Orders as

follows: 

Within 10 days of the filing date of this Order, Defendants and Plaintiffs shall each file a

Supplemental Brief, not exceeding 10 pages, responding to the opposing party’s arguments concerning

Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Specifically, Defendants shall address Plaintiffs’ claims based on the policies,

practices, and customs as identified in Plaintiff’s Opposition in light of the Monell factors and pertinent

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment precedent. Likewise, Plaintiffs shall address Defendants’ arguments

regarding the County Jail’s written policies regarding strip searches and safety cell placement. If

Plaintiffs do not seek to rely on the written policies as the basis of their federal claims, Plaintiff shall

Case 3:04-cv-02790-MJJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 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 1

Plaintiffs shall initiate the conference call with Defendants and call into chambers at (415) 522-4141 at the stated

time. 

3

so indicate. Any discussion in the briefs exceeding the scope of the issues identified above will be

stricken. Further, the Court VACATES the hearing current set for March 7, 2006, and sets a

telephonic status conference for March 7, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02790-MJJ Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 3