Klein v. DuPage County

Citations: 119 F.R.D. 29; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1058; 1988 WL 8702Docket: No. 85 C 3430

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois; February 4, 1988; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On November 19, 1986, the court addressed several motions and provided an overview of the litigation involving Klein v. DuPage County. The court initially struck down claims for injunctive relief, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed solely with damage claims. The plaintiffs, alleging that routine strip-and-cavity searches of DuPage inmates before court appearances and visitations violate the Fourth Amendment, seek class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They name prison officials Doria, Lundmark, and Burdett as defendants and pursue damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Initially, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class encompassing all prisoners at the DuPage County Jail since 1978, excluding those on work release. In response to defendants' arguments, they revised the class definition to include prisoners from July 9, 1980, onward and those incarcerated prior to that date who remained in prison until at least July 9, 1983. Despite these revisions, the court retained concerns regarding the plaintiffs' standing to sue but chose to set aside this issue to consider the class certification motion, highlighting the need for timely determination under Rule 23(c)(1).

The court noted that the constitutionality of the strip-and-cavity searches cannot be resolved in a single class action. Citing Bell v. Wolfish, it emphasized that the reasonableness of such searches is contingent on a balancing test that weighs the need for security against the invasion of personal rights. This assessment is fact-specific, requiring consideration of the manner of the search, justification, and context. The court acknowledged that the case has not advanced sufficiently to ascertain the factual circumstances surrounding the searches conducted by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to searches despite having only interacted with guards and fellow inmates, specifically mentioning both court and visitation searches. The nature of these interactions remains unclear, particularly regarding potential contact with individuals arrested recently. This situation may differ from the case of Jane Does v. City of Chicago, where the constitutionality of blanket strip-and-cavity searches on female traffic violators was challenged and deemed unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. In the current case, the varied reasons for each plaintiff's arrest, their differing levels of contact with non-prisoners, and the distinct security concerns at play complicate the possibility of a singular constitutional determination suitable for class action.

The court notes that assessing the constitutionality of each individual search may require separate evaluations, and the issue of damages would necessitate detailed, fact-specific inquiries. In Jane Does, the class was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) but not 23(b)(3), leading to individual trials for damages. Currently, as no claims for injunctive relief exist, certification under 23(b)(2) is not feasible, and the potential for separate damage determinations akin to those following the Jane Does ruling undermines the appropriateness of a class action. 

Plaintiffs claim they faced strip-and-cavity searches, but the nature of these searches—whether visual or manual—will significantly affect potential damage awards. Factors such as whether searches were conducted in the presence of the opposite sex or involved threats or ridicule will further influence the assessment of damages. Thus, the case's complexities render a class action unsuitable, as it would not provide a superior method of adjudication compared to individual assessments.

Inmates may have undergone varying search procedures, including only strip searches, only cavity searches, or both. The damage awards for plaintiffs will differ based on the type of search experienced, with higher awards for those physically harmed during the searches, as highlighted in Doe v. Thomas. Emotional impacts, such as shock or humiliation, will also influence the damage awards, necessitating an evaluation of each plaintiff's mental and physical health before and after the searches. Such individualized assessments are not suitable for class action suits. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. The question of the City’s liability was not independently assessed from the search policy's constitutionality, as a settlement agreement precluded the need for a liability admission. Even if claims for injunctive relief were valid, class certification is not necessary to address the alleged unconstitutional search practices. Individual actions can still lead to classwide injunctive relief, as demonstrated in relevant case law, including Tinetti v. Wittke, which allowed for permanent injunctions despite individual claims.