University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Dillon v. Clackamas County JC-OR-0011
Docket / Court 3:14-cv-00820 ( D. Or. )
State/Territory Oregon
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Strip Search Cases
Case Summary
On May 18, 2014, inmates at the Clackamas County Jail (CCJ) filed this class action lawsuit against Clackamas County and one of its senior Department officials. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, brought this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and ... read more >
On May 18, 2014, inmates at the Clackamas County Jail (CCJ) filed this class action lawsuit against Clackamas County and one of its senior Department officials. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, brought this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments for strip and visual cavity searches conducted on pre-trial detainees and convicted inmates at the CCJ beginning in May 2012. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages on both individual and class-wide basis, as well as punitive damages. They also sought a declaratory judgment that the strip search practices of the County were unconstitutional. Lastly, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Clackamas County and its officials from continuing to implement the strip and visual cavity searches in group and public fashion without adequate privacy and reasonable suspicion.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 4, 2015 to add plaintiffs and claims. They then sought to amend the complaint again on February 27, 2017. The motion was denied by Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You on April 6, 2017 and that recommendation adopted by Judge Michael Simon on April 21, 2017.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on November 2, 2016. They alleged that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims of unconstitutional searches on behalf of female inmates and future inmates, among others. On May 2, 2018, Magistrate Judge You granted the motion as to all claims under the Eighth Amendment and plaintiffs’ claims for constitutional violations based on the emergency search of October 10, 2012. Otherwise, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. Judge Simon confirmed the order on July 23, 2018.

The plaintiffs sought to certify three classes and moved for partial summary judgment on February 27, 2017. Class One included everyone who had undergone unjustified strip searches at CCJ since May 19, 2012. The two subclasses included persons undergone group and public strip searches since September 25, 2012 as well as a group of inmates searched on October 10, 2012, respectively. On May 2, 2018, Magistrate Judge You certified Class One, but only as to “the Fourth Amendment claims of male inmates at the CCJ who underwent return-from-court visual strip searches between September 25, 2012, and the date in May 2013 on which the County installed privacy panels in CCJ’s hallway.” As for the partial summary judgment, the plaintiffs’ motion was denied. The recommendations were confirmed by Judge Simon on July 23, 2018.

On September 7, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They alleged that the plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because some plaintiffs made no showing of a physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. As for the remaining named plaintiffs, the defendants alleged that none of them were in custody at the CCJ when the second amended complaint was filed. In addition, Article III of the Constitution prevented the current plaintiffs from pursuing this case on behalf of the female CCJ inmates. This motion was denied on July 23, 2018 by Magistrate Judge You.

On April 10, 2019, the defendants moved to decertify the class, and on May 21, 2019, the defendants moved for imposition of sanctions.

Oral argument was held on May 21, 2019 on the motion to decertify the class. On August 6, 2019 Magistrate Judge You recommended that the motion to decertify the class be granted. Magistrate Judge You also denied the defendants' motion for sanctions on the same day. The plaintiffs filed objections to the recommendation. 2019 WL 6709545 (D.Or. Aug. 06, 2019). On December 9, 2019, District Judge Simon adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations and granted the defendant's motion to decertify the class. 2019 WL 6709381 (D.Or. Dec. 09, 2019).

Eight days after the order was issued, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Appeal Docket No. 19-36084). On December 23, 2019, the deputy clerk of the Ninth Circuit filed an order stating that the Ninth Circuit may not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's decision to decertify the class may not be final or appealable. The court ordered that within 21 days, the appellants must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On January 13, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a response to the order to show cause, but the Ninth Circuit (Judges William C. Canby, Ronald M. Gould, and Paul J. Watford) dismissed the appeal in a February 25, 2020 order. 2020 WL 1290290 (9th. Cir. 2020).

Meanwhile, back in the district court, on October 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge You issued a recommendation on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge You recommended that the motion for summary judgment should be granted in full, stating that: "1) the § 1983 claims against Sheriff Roberts should dismissed; 2) the Fourth Amendment claim against the County should be dismissed; and 3) the state claim against defendants should be dismissed." 2020 WL 2544781 (D.Or. Apr. 20, 2020)

Two weeks later, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendations. In May 2020, District Judge Simon adopted the recommendations of Magistrate Judge You, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice. 2020 WL 2545312 (D.Or. May 19, 2020)

On June 16, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Appeal Docket No. 20-35544). Six days later, the plaintiffs filed a Mediation Questionnaire briefly describing the issues in the case, and the next day, the Ninth Circuit filed a mediation order saying that this case had not been selected for inclusion in the court's mediation program. As of July 2020, the appeal is ongoing.

Sichun Liu - 01/30/2019
Sabrina Glavota - 07/10/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Unreasonable search and seizure
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Assault/abuse by staff
Conditions of confinement
Search policies
Strip search policy
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Clackamas County
Plaintiff Description Male inmates at the CCJ who underwent return-from-court visual strip searches between September 25, 2012, and the date in May 2013 on which the County installed privacy panels in CCJ’s hallway.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filed 05/18/2014
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Jail Strip-Search Cases: Patterns and Participants
http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp
Date: Spring 2008
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University in St. Louis Faculty)
Citation: 71 Law & Contemp. Problems 65 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:14-cv-00820 (D. Or.)
JC-OR-0011-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/24/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
JC-OR-0011-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/18/2014
Class Action Second Amended Complaint [ECF# 31]
JC-OR-0011-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/04/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 160] (2018 WL 3539438) (D. Or.)
JC-OR-0011-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/23/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Findings and Recommendations [ECF# 198]
JC-OR-0011-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/06/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 217] (2019 WL 6709381) (D. Or.)
JC-OR-0011-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/09/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations [ECF# 225] (2020 WL 2545312) (D. Or.)
JC-OR-0011-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/19/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Simon, Michael Howard (D. Or.) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0003 | JC-OR-0011-0006 | JC-OR-0011-0007 | JC-OR-0011-9000
You, Youlee Yim Court not on record [Magistrate] show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0005 | JC-OR-0011-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Berman, Leonard Randolph (Oregon) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0001 | JC-OR-0011-0002 | JC-OR-0011-9000
Farrar, Tonna K (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0001 | JC-OR-0011-0002 | JC-OR-0011-9000
Geragos, Mark J (California) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0001 | JC-OR-0011-0002 | JC-OR-0011-9000
Meiselas, Benjamin J (California) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-0001 | JC-OR-0011-0002 | JC-OR-0011-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Gordon, Alexander (Oregon) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-9000
Lillegren, Shawn A (Oregon) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-9000
Madkour, Stephen L (Oregon) show/hide docs
JC-OR-0011-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -