Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03105/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03105-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

STEPHEN R. YOURKE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-03105 CRB

ORDER

On June 27, 2006, this Court issued an order denying without prejudice all pending

motions and staying the proceedings in this case. (Docket No. 96.) In doing so, the Court

declined to rule on all issues raised in those motions--including the constitutionality of

Plaintiff’s strip search, as well as the issue of Defendants’ qualified immunity--until the

Ninth Circuit ruled on an appeal in a related case, Mary Bull, et al. v. City and County of San

Francisco, et al., No. C 03-1840 CRB. Bull involved, among other issues, a determination as

to qualified immunity in the context of the Defendants’ strip search policy generally.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave To File

Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment. In this

motion, Plaintiff notes that Defendants have taken an interlocutory appeal in this case, and

that they rely in their opening brief on appeal on a declaration by Undersheriff Jan Dempsey. 

Plaintiff further notes that he previously objected to the declaration and challenged its

admissibility. In the pending motion, he requests this Court to rule on the admissibility of

Case 3:03-cv-03105-CRB Document 105 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2003\3105\order 5 declaration.wpd 2

Undersheriff Dempsey’s declaration “before the Ninth Circuit rules” on the interlocutory

appeal taken in this case.

The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte motion. The Court reiterates that it has

denied without prejudice all pending motions in this case, including the government’s

previous motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. It is therefore

inappropriate and premature to consider the admissibility of evidence, such as Undersheriff

Dempsey’s declaration, which was submitted in connection with those previously filed

motions. The Court declines to consider the admissibility of such evidentiary issues in a

vacuum, and the Court again reiterates that all proceedings in this case are STAYED until the

Ninth Circuit rules on the pending appeal in Bull.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03105-CRB Document 105 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2