Filed: Apr. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . As directed by the Court's February 23, 2018 Decision and Order, the parties have filed briefs addressing several issues that arose during the Court's attempt to resolve the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. 1. In response to the Court's question about whether the class in this case should be decertified, the Defendants "request that the Court decertify the class," Docket No. 118 at 6, and the Plaintiffs likewise "suggest
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . As directed by the Court's February 23, 2018 Decision and Order, the parties have filed briefs addressing several issues that arose during the Court's attempt to resolve the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. 1. In response to the Court's question about whether the class in this case should be decertified, the Defendants "request that the Court decertify the class," Docket No. 118 at 6, and the Plaintiffs likewise "suggest ...
More
DECISION AND ORDER
RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
As directed by the Court's February 23, 2018 Decision and Order, the parties have filed briefs addressing several issues that arose during the Court's attempt to resolve the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
1. In response to the Court's question about whether the class in this case should be decertified, the Defendants "request that the Court decertify the class," Docket No. 118 at 6, and the Plaintiffs likewise "suggest . . . that the class . . . be decertified . . . without prejudice to being renewed following the Court's decision on summary judgment and leave to file an Amended Complaint." Docket No. 120 at 2.
Based on the parties' request to decertify the class, and for the reasons stated in the Court's decision to decertify the class in Pritchard, et al. v. County of Erie, et al., 04-CV-534-A, Docket No. 117 at 15-20, the Court decertifies the class in this case. Because "[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), the Court's decision to decertify the class is without prejudice. Thus, this case will proceed only on behalf of Dedrick Williams, Marquessa Page, and Camile Smith in their individual capacities.1
2. The Plaintiffs "request an opportunity to provide supplemental briefing to the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and to bring to the Court's attention decisions from other Federal courts decided after Florence that continue to reiterate where, as here, blanket strip searches are conducted by municipalities well before a detainee enters a County Jail's general population, those strip searches remain unconstitutional." Docket No. 120 at 2. The Plaintiffs may file a supplemental brief addressing post-Florence case law on or before May 15, 2018. The Defendants need not respond unless directed to do so by the Court.
3. The Plaintiffs state that they "agree that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and will work with the Defendants' counsel to discontinue claims against these individuals with prejudice." Docket No. 120 at 3. On or before May 15, 2018, the parties shall advise the Court whether claims against the individual Defendants will be voluntarily dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
