University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Yourke v. City & County of San Francisco JC-CA-0051
Docket / Court 3:03-cv-03105-CRB ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection Strip Search Cases
Case Summary
This case, Yourke v. City and County of San Francisco, was a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.) [see JC-CA-0007], a class action lawsuit challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

The Yourke case ... read more >
This case, Yourke v. City and County of San Francisco, was a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.) [see JC-CA-0007], a class action lawsuit challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

The Yourke case was an individual action filed on July 2, 2003 by attorneys who were also class counsel in the Bull case. Plaintiff Yourke alleged that he was subjected to false arrest and then was transported to the County Jail, where he was subjected to a strip search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and California state law.

After attempts to settle the Yourke case failed, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 3, 2004, the District Court (Judge Charles R. Breyer) denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his strip search claims and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The court also denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims.

On February 23, 2006, the District Court issued an Amended Memorandum and Order in the related Bull case, (a) holding that some of Defendants' policies were constitutional while others were unconstitutional and (b) finding that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to some, but not all, claims. See Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 2006 WL 449148 (N.D.Cal. Feb 23, 2006). Based on that order, the parties in Yourke filed a second set of motions for partial summary judgment on the issues of (a) the constitutionality of Plaintiff's strip search and (b) Defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity. The District Court dismissed these motions without prejudice and stayed all further proceedings while the Bull appeal was pending.

On September 16, 2010, the Court ruled on the parties' renewed cross motions for summary judgment, granting Defendants' motion and denying Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's appeal of this judgment was rejected by the Ninth Circuit on December 3, 2010, for failure to respond to a November order.

Timothy Shoffner - 07/16/2012


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
General
Search policies
Strip search policy
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) City & County of San Francisco
Plaintiff Description Individual (male) subjected to an alleged false arrest and subsequent strip search.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing JC-CA-0007 : Bull v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0022 : Flick v. San Francisco, California (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies After Decision: Implementation of Judicial Decrees in Correctional Settings
Written: Oct. 01, 1977
By: M. Kay Harris & Dudley P. Spiller (Temple University)
Citation: (1977)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Jail Strip-Search Cases: Patterns and Participants
http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University in St. Louis)
Citation: 71 Law & Contemp. Problems 65 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
06-16450 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 03/14/2007
JC-CA-0051-9001 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
3:03-cv-03105-CRB (N.D. Cal.) 07/02/2012
JC-CA-0051-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order [Regarding Motions for Summary Judgment] 09/03/2004 (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Stay 06/27/2006 (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Motion for Reconsideration] 12/18/2006 (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 09/16/2010 (2010 WL 3701789 / 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 97004) (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 09/16/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ninth Circuit] 12/03/2010
JC-CA-0051-0006 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Breyer, Charles R. (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0001 | JC-CA-0051-0002 | JC-CA-0051-0003 | JC-CA-0051-0004 | JC-CA-0051-0005 | JC-CA-0051-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Burris, John L. (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Merin, Mark E. (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000
Schwartz, Andrew Charles (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000
Yourke, Steven Robert (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Bonta, Robert A. (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Evans, Ingrid M. (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000
Newdorf, David Blake (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Other Lawyers Haddad, Michael J. (California)
JC-CA-0051-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -