se a a

other way match this proposed class of male inmates. Plaintiffs
have proposed a sufficiently well-defined class.
B.

For a class to be certified, plaintiffs first must show that
the affected class is so numerous that joinder is impractical.
Fep. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (1). While defendants contest whether
Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement, their
arguments are based on the issues of vagueness and overbreadth
addressed above. Plaintiffs estimate the number of affected
individuals is over 20,000, based on a similar class of female
inmates which numbered well over 10,000. This is sufficient to
satisfy the numerosity requirement. See Daniels v. Blount Parrish
& Co., Inc., 211 F.R.D. 352, 353 (N.D. I11. 2002).

Defendants also argue that Mr. Bullock and Mr. Reid do not
meet the Rule 23 commonality, typicality, or adequate
representation requirements.

The issues of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of the
named plaintiffs to represent the proposed class often overlap.!
Gen. Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158 n.13 (1982). To
show commonality, plaintiffs must show that the proposed class
shares common questions of law or fact. Krislov v. Rednour, 946 F.

Supp. 563, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Where, as here, “a question of

1 Defendants are not challenging the competency of plaintiffs’
counsel, the second prong of the adequacy of representation
requirement.



tel it

so a A

However, the fact that damages may vary among plaintiffs is not a
sufficient reason to deny certification. See, e.g., Calvin v.
Sheriff of Will Cty., No. 03-C-3086, 2004 WL 1125922, at *5 (N.D.
Ill. May 17, 2004).

Defendants also argue that because of the large number of
potential class members, the proposed class is not manageable.?
However, the central issue is whether defendants have violated the
constitutional rights of male inmates by subjecting them to a strip
search after a judicial release from custody. Assuming defendants
are found liable on this central issue, I may choose to certify
subclasses, hold individual hearings, or otherwise divide the class
for the purpose of determining damages. See, e.g., Calvin, 2004 WL

1125922 at *5.

II.
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted. A
class is certified consisting of those persons described in
plaintiffs’ motion:

All male inmates who, on or after February 12, 2002, have been
subjected to defendants’ policy, practice and custom of strip
searching, without reasonable suspicion that the inmate is
concealing a weapon or other contraband, at the Cook County
Department of Corrections following their return from court
after there is a judicial determination that there is no

2 Defendants estimate that the class may include between
60,000 and 120,000 individuals. Notably, defendants earlier argued
that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the class was
sufficiently numerous.



i i
co oO ~
protect the interests of the class. With respect to Rule 23(b),
plaintiffs here proceed under 23(b) (3), which requires that the
questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

A.

Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the proposed class
satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23. Trotter v. Klincar, 748
F.2d 1177, 1184 (7 Cir. 1984). As an initial matter, plaintiffs
must show that they have presented a definable class. Harris v.
Gen. Dev. Corp., 127 F.R.D. 655, 658 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Defendants
argue that plaintiffs have not done so. Plaintiffs’ proposed class
consists of inmates who have returned to the jail following a court
order for their release, and who were strip searched upon that
return. Defendants contend that this class is too vague and
overbroad, arguing that judges do not determine whether an
individual should continue to be held, simply whether they should
be held on a particular charge. I disagree. Defendants can
determine, prior to any need for a strip search of an inmate
returning from court, whether a given inmate will be released
pursuant to the court order or will be reentering the jail
population. In fact, defendants are operating under a court order

prohibiting them from strip searching female inmates who in every


4

+ a ~

law refers to standardized conduct by defendants toward members of
the proposed class, a common nucleus of operative facts is
typically presented, and the commonality requirement is usually
met.” Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 F.R.D. 357, 361 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
Defendants again argue that commonality does not exist because the
class is undefined and overbroad; this argument fails for the
reasons discussed above. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ policy
of strip searching male inmates under the stated conditions
violates their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. That issue
is central to the claims of the proposed class; the commonality
requirement is met.

Typicality is shown when the named plaintiffs’ claims arise
from the same event or practice as the claims of the proposed class
and are based on the same legal theory. Patrykus, 121 F.R.D. at
362. If the claims are based on the same legal theory, even
factual differences among class claims need not defeat typicality.
Id. The named plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of the class arise
from defendants’ practice of strip searching male inmates under the
stated conditions. The claims proceed on the legal theory that
this practice violates the inmates’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Defendants argue that typicality is defeated because the
named plaintiffs allege that they were closely supervised while
away from the jail and other potential class members may not have

been so closely supervised. Potential factual differences


longer a basis for their detention, other than to be processed
for release.

ENTER ORDER:

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: November 19s 2004



Minute Oger Form (0697)

shed Chics Detrh. a) ;
United ates District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

na Magiseate seats Elaine E. Bucklo Shunt hooked Saage
CASE NUMBER 04C 1051 DATE 11/19/2004
CASE Bullock, et al. Vs. Sheahan, et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: ofthe motion being presente]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due____.
(6)) a) Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon____ssetfor___—_ at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor_ at
(0) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__—_setfor__—sat__—
() a Trial[set for/re-set for]on____—_at
(8) Oo [Bencb/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__—_at
(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OLocalRule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) COFRCP41(a\2).
go) =f [Other docket entry] Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted as set forth in the
Memorandum Opinion and Order attached hereto. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
al [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

a's

wisi
yyngd LON

courtroom ud & non ADO.
MPS deputy’s [1s ud 61
initials -
Date/time reectted in
~ “central Clerk’s Office



: a faa)
concerning the level of supervision of inmates are not sufficient
to defeat typicality.

Finally, adequacy of representation with respect to the named
plaintiffs requires that the named plaintiffs not have a conflict
of interest that would prevent them from adequately protecting the
claims of other class members. Patrykus, 121 F.R.D. at 362.
Defendants again raise the issue of differing levels of supervision
to argue that the named plaintiffs carlnot adequately represent the
proposed class. The proposed class is challenging the
constitutionality of the defendants’ policy on strip searches,
regardless of the level of scrutiny for each individual inmate.
Plaintiffs can adequately represent the class.

Cc.

The proposed class must also fit under least one section of
Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs move for certification of the proposed
class under Rule 23(b) (3), which requires that common questions of
law or fact predominate over individual issues among the class, and
that a class action be the superior option for resolving those
questions. FED. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (3). Defendants argue that
individual issues relating to damages will predominate over the
question of whether the male inmates’ constitutional rights have
been violated. Plaintiffs seek only monetary damages and the
amount of damages each plaintiff is entitled to will rely, in part,

on the level of emotional distress experienced by that plaintiff.



- ~ ”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DOCKETED

QUENTIN BULLOCK and JACK REID, NOV 2 2 2004

individually and on behalf of a
class of all those similarly
situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 04 C 1051

MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, Sheriff of
Cook County in his official
capacity, and COOK COUNTY,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Quentin Bullock (also known as Robert Bullock) and
Jack Reid allege that defendants Michael Sheahan, Cook County
Sheriff, and Cook County have a policy and/or practice under which
Mr. Bullock and Mr. Reid were subjected to strip-searches upon
returning to the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDC) for
out-processing. On July 17, 2002, Mr. Bullock was arrested for
armed robbery and committed to the custody of the CCDC. Following
a bench trial on December 17, 2003, Mr. Bullock was found not
guilty and was returned to the CCDC for out-processing pending
release. On May 1, 2003, Mr.’ Reid was arrested on a felony charge
and also committed to the custody of the CCDC. Following a bench

trial on September 23, 2003, Mr. Reid was also found not guilty and

AO

returned to the CCDC for out-processing.


il jal

~ A

After their respective trials and return to the CCDC, both
plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to a strip search prior
to their release, in accordance with the defendants’ policy and/or
practice. Plaintiffs further allege that while male inmates are
subjected to such searches, female inmates are not. In contrast,
women returned to the CCDC for out-processing are placed in a
holding cell while CCDC staff checks for additional cases or holds
involving the individual. Once the staff confirms that no other
reason exists to hold the individual, women have their civilian
belongings returned, have their identity confirmed, and are
released. Plaintiffs allege that this differential treatment
violates their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b) (3)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [I Grant that motion.

I.

In order to certify a class, I must determine that the four
prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are met, and that the action
is maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (1), (2), or (3). The
four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are that (1) the proposed class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims of
the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class,

and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately