2013 WL 3805659
E.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs brought consolidated class actions challenging Nassau County Correctional Center’s (NCCC) blanket policy of strip-searching all arrestees admitted after misdemeanors/non-criminal offenses (class period May 10, 1996–June 1, 1999). Defendants previously conceded liability.
- The Court certified a class as to liability and entered summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability (Jan. 16, 2007); later proceedings addressed damages.
- After the Supreme Court decided Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders (2012), defendants moved under Rule 54(b)/law-of-the-case to vacate their concession and the court’s prior liability ruling as to federal claims, arguing Florence changed controlling Fourth Amendment law.
- Plaintiffs argued Florence does not apply because class members were segregated in “new admit” housing for up to 72 hours and because defendants should remain bound by their unreserved concession.
- The court examined (a) whether Florence constitutes an intervening change in controlling law, (b) the factual intake practices at NCCC (declarations indicating new admits had non‑incidental contact with others during processing and in new‑admit housing), and (c) the effect on class commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
- Ruling: the court vacated the summary-judgment liability ruling only as to the federal (Section 1983/Fourth Amendment) claim and dismissed that federal claim with prejudice; New York State constitutional claims (Art. I, § 12) remain unaffected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florence is an intervening change in controlling law justifying reconsideration of the law-of-the-case created by defendants’ prior concession | Florence doesn’t apply to the class because new admits were held apart from general population for 72 hours, so concession should stand | Florence broadly permits intake strip searches of detainees admitted to general population; NCCC new‑admit practices involved sufficient contact to fall within Florence | Court: Florence is an intervening change of controlling federal law and warrants revisiting the prior liability ruling for federal claims |
| Whether defendants’ earlier, unreserved concession of liability bars vacatur of that liability judgment | A voluntary, unreserved concession should bind defendants and preclude reopening | Concession does not irrevocably bar reconsideration where intervening controlling law changes and law-of-the-case exceptions permit relief | Court: concession does not automatically bar reconsideration; relief appropriate as to federal claims given intervening Supreme Court precedent |
| Whether the class as certified still satisfies Rule 23 after Florence | Class remains cohesive because NCCC distinguished new‑admit housing from general population, so Florence is inapplicable | Florence undermines common questions by validating intake strip searches in many circumstances and thus defeats predominance | Court: Florence undermines the federal‑law basis for class commonality/predominance; federal class liability cannot stand |
| Whether Florence altered New York State constitutional law (Art. I, § 12) governing strip searches | Florence should not affect state constitutional claims; New York law may require greater protection | Florence is federal Fourth Amendment precedent only; defendants seek to withdraw concession on state claim too | Court: Florence does not constitute an intervening change in controlling New York law; defendants’ concession and liability judgment on state claim remain in place |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (upheld intake strip/search procedures as reasonable for detainees admitted to general population)
- In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing defendants’ concession and class certification issues)
- Shain v. Ellison, 53 F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (district court decision finding blanket strip‑search policy unconstitutional)
- Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and standards for reconsideration)
- Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (Rule 54(b) recognizes district court discretion to revise interlocutory orders)
- United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1987) (addressing government concession, intervening Supreme Court precedent, and discretion to correct manifest injustice)
- Morris v. Am. Nat’l Can Corp., 988 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying law‑of‑the‑case exceptions where intervening Supreme Court decision altered controlling law)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (example cited in Florence regarding detainees held without assignment to general population)
- People v. Mothersell, 14 N.Y.3d 358 (N.Y. 2010) (New York cases requiring reasonable suspicion for strip searches by police under State Constitution)