Pierce v. County of San Francisco

Background

County Jail No. 2 had no outdoor recreation area. The plaintiffs, who were past and present pretrial detainees there, alleged that the lack of outdoor recreation violated the Fourteenth Amendment, federal civil-rights law, and the California Bane Act. They also alleged that female pretrial detainees were subjected to non-emergency unclothed searches while male deputies and other women could view them.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on both the outdoor-recreation and cross-gender-search claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a jury’s decision. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the outdoor-recreation claim.

Outdoor Recreation

Because the plaintiffs were pretrial detainees, the court analyzed their confinement-condition claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protections rather than the Eighth Amendment. The court stated that constitutional rules require jails to provide outdoor recreation or otherwise meaningful recreation, but do not establish a specific minimum amount of recreation time for pretrial detainees.

The court found that CJ2 provided three hours of indoor recreation each week, including structured exercise classes and access to a gym with exercise equipment, games, and other amenities. General-population detainees also had several hours of daily free time in their housing pods, during which they could walk, read, watch television, play games, make phone calls, and exercise. The court noted that the recreation hours were not distributed over all seven days as required by California regulations, but held that the overall recreation opportunities were constitutionally sufficient.

Because the court found no unconstitutional treatment, it also held that the related municipal-liability claim and Bane Act claims failed. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the outdoor-recreation claim.

Cross-Gender Search Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that female pretrial detainees were searched by female deputies while male deputies were present nearby. The jail’s written policy required strip searches to occur privately and generally required employees present during the search to have the same gender identity as the person being searched, except in emergencies.

The court reviewed evidence that female deputies took groups of detainees to bathroom stalls while male deputies remained in the housing pod to perform security and other duties. The court also considered video footage of one search. It found no evidence that male deputies were at the search location or were staring into the stalls. The court characterized any possible viewing as incidental and casual.

Applying Ninth Circuit precedent concerning the limited right of incarcerated people to bodily privacy, the court held that this incidental and casual cross-gender viewing did not unreasonably infringe the detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights. It also held that the related municipal-liability, supervisory-liability, and Bane Act claims failed because they depended on an underlying constitutional violation. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the cross-gender-search claim.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment regarding the outdoor-recreation claim and the cross-gender-search claim. He denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding the outdoor-recreation claim. The court also granted the parties’ requests to file confidential materials under seal and granted defendants’ request for additional pages. It directed the entry of a separate judgment and ordered the clerk to close the file.