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
