Amador v. Baca, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61344

Plaintiffs move to certify an injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) and a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) for women inmates at CRDF subjected to group strip/visual body cavity searches.
The challenged practice occurs in Bus Bay 3, where inmates are searched in groups of up to sixty, with extensive visual and physical inspection of bodies.
Plaintiffs allege uniform procedures but with factual variations in conditions across individual searches, including floor cleanliness, language, outside viewing, order of cavity probing, and disability accommodations.
Defendants contend some conditions are not uniformly applied and dispute the existence of a common policy or practice for every class member.
The court analyzes Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and the applicable Rule 23(b) standards (2 for injunctive relief, 3 for damages) to determine certification viability.
The court certifies an injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) but denies, without prejudice, certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) on the merits of commonality and damages treatment, while inviting a narrowed issue-class proposal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality and typicality satisfied?	Plaintiffs contend uniform illegal strip-search practice yields common questions.	Defendants argue substantial factual variation defeats commonality/typicality.	Commonality established for some, not all, conditions; not all alleged features are common to the entire class.
Adequacy of injunctive-relief class representatives?	Barranca, Vigil, Paiz represent the class broadly.	They lack standing to pursue injunctive relief because no imminent future injury.	Standing at filing suffices; certification relates back to the complaint and is proper.
Rule 23(b)(2) appropriateness for injunctive relief?	Primary relief is injunctive/declaratory; common practices affect the class.	Potential individualized issues limit the scope of relief.	Certified injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2).
Damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate?	Damages can be determined on a classwide basis via presumed damages.	Damages require individualized proof; no predominance for damages on common theory.	Damages class denied; predominance not shown; no class-wide presumed damages.
Liability-only issue-class under Rule 23(c)(4) viable?	Could certify liability on common issues and try damages later.	Issue-class would shift burdens and complicate proceedings; not superior.	Court invites further briefing but finds liability-only issue-class not clearly superior at this stage.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires common questions capable of classwide resolution)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (four Rule 23(a) requirements and commonality burden; classwide proof)
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (reiterates strict standard for commonality and classwide resolution)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (damages for constitutional violations generally require actual injury unless nominal damages)
Stachura v. Memphis Community Sch. Dist., 477 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1986) (presumed damages limited; damages must reflect actual injury unless nominal)
Hazle v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2013) (presumed damages not generally required where actual injury proven)
Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (presumed damages in constitutional torts debated; compensatory damages standard)
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) (precedent on presumed damages for constitutional violations)