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
On July 2, 2003, an individual action was filed against the City and County of San Francisco by the Law Offices of John L. Burris on behalf of an individual who was allegedly falsely arrested and subjected to a strip search after being transported to the county jail. The case was brought in the ... read more >
On July 2, 2003, an individual action was filed against the City and County of San Francisco by the Law Offices of John L. Burris on behalf of an individual who was allegedly falsely arrested and subjected to a strip search after being transported to the county jail. The case was brought in the Northern District of California and, after being reassigned twice, was presided over by Judge Charles Breyer. The plaintiff claimed that the false arrest and strip search were in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California state law.

This case 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 in this Clearinghouse, a class-action lawsuit challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

After attempts to settle the Yourke case failed, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 3, 2004, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his strip search claims and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The court also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the 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 the defendants' policies were constitutional while others were unconstitutional and (b) finding that the 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 the plaintiff's strip search and (b) the defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity. The District Court dismissed these motions without prejudice and stayed all further proceedings while the Bull appeal was pending. The Bull appeal, filed on March 26, 2006, was decided by Ninth Circuit on August 22, 2008. The Circuit Court affirmed the decision that the blanket strip-search policy was a violation of constitutional rights and also held that the defendants would not be protected by qualified immunity.

On September 16, 2010, the Court ruled on the parties' renewed cross motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants' motion and denying the plaintiff's motion. 2010 WL 3701789. Plaintiff's appeal of this judgment was rejected by the Ninth Circuit on December 3, 2010, for failure to respond to a November order. Sometime between the end of 2010 and May 2012, the plaintiff appealed the 2010 judgement pro se on the Fourth Amendment claim and his California Penal Code § 4030. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment on May 25, 2012. 473 Fed.Appx. 725.

On June 28, 2013, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the Bull suit without prejudice, a class action suit related to San Francisco’s strip search policy, and approved its settlement claim.

Timothy Shoffner - 07/16/2012
Christiana Johnson - 02/07/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Unreasonable search and seizure
General
Search policies
Strip search policy
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
State law
Defendant(s) City & County of San Francisco
Plaintiff Description Individual (male) subjected to an alleged false arrest and subsequent strip search.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filed 07/02/2003
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
  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)
06-16450 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
JC-CA-0051-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/14/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
3:03-cv-03105-CRB (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/02/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order [Regarding Motions for Summary Judgment] [ECF# 67] (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Stay [ECF# 96] (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/27/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Motion for Reconsideration] [ECF# 105] (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/18/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 131] (2010 WL 3701789 / 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 97004) (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/16/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment [ECF# 132] (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/16/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ninth Circuit] [Ct. of App. ECF# 142]
JC-CA-0051-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/03/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Breyer, Charles R. (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-0001 | JC-CA-0051-0002 | JC-CA-0051-0003 | JC-CA-0051-0004 | JC-CA-0051-0005 | JC-CA-0051-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Burris, John L. (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Merin, Mark E. (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000
Schwartz, Andrew Charles (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000
Yourke, Steven Robert (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Bonta, Robert A. (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Evans, Ingrid M. (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000
Newdorf, David Blake (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000 | JC-CA-0051-9001
Other Lawyers Haddad, Michael J. (California) show/hide docs
JC-CA-0051-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -