Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01840/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01840-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1Classifications (1) through (5) are defined as follows:

(1) arrestees with one or more prior convictions or two or more prior

arrests for crimes involving drugs, weapons or violence; (2) arrestees

charged with a probation violation; (3) individuals arrested on a San

Francisco warrant outside of San Francisco County; (4) individuals

arrested on a federal charge; (5) individuals held at a San Francisco jail

while in transit to another part of the state[.]

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY BULL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-01840 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

Now before the Court is defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(a). On September 22, 2005, the Court issued a

Memorandum and Order Granting Summary Judgment (“Order”) for plaintiffs. Defendants’

Motion specifically seeks reconsideration of two sentences in that Order:

Defendants do not oppose summary judgment on classifications (1)-(5). The

Court therefore grants summary judgment with respect to those portions of

the policy.

Order at *7.1 Defendants now allege that they do dispute these conclusions and seek to brief

these issues at this time. Plaintiffs have filed no response to defendants’ Motion for Leave.

Case 3:03-cv-01840-CRB Document 226 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\1840\orderreconsideration.wpd 2

After carefully considering the arguments presented by defendants, the Court hereby

removes those two sentences from its September 22, 2005 Order. Upon further reflection,

the Court believes that it erred in addressing classifications (1) and (2) at all, because those

plaintiffs, if any, who fell into those categories were either never included in, or were

expressly removed from, the class definition prior to class certification. See Memorandum

and Order at *10 (June 10, 2004). In light of the Court’s efforts towards a global resolution

regarding the City’s former strip search policy, the Court will also permit additional briefing

on classifications (3) through (5).

The Court hereby GRANTS defendants motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(d),

defendants may file a Motion for Reconsideration of the narrow issue addressed in this Order

no later than December 2, 2005. Plaintiffs may file an Opposition no later than December

16, 2005, which should specifically contemplate, in addition to any response to other issues

raised by defendants, whether the Court should address classifications (1) and (2). A Reply,

if any, shall be filed by December 23, 2005. All briefs shall be no longer than 10 pages. 

Parties will be notified if oral argument is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01840-CRB Document 226 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2