Input:
Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Sandra King Wilson, and Joseph DePietro, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Gloucester, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR., both individually and in his official capacity: as Undersheriff of the County of Gloucester, : MICHAEL SILVERT, both individually and in his official capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Gloucester, FRED CATALANO, both individually and in his official capacity as Chief Sheriff s Officer of: the County of Gloucester, and GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, both individually and in his .official capacity as Director of the Department of Corrections of Gloucester County, DARRYL JOHNSON, both Individually and in his official capacity as Warden of the Department of Corrections of Gloucester County, CAROL PISTORIO both individually and in her official capacity: as Captain of the Department of Corrections: of Gloucester County
Defendants.

Civil Action Number CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

I

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 2 of 22

INTRODUCTION

This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights

secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America. For at least the past 2 years, the Gloucester County

Sheriff's Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the

Gloucester County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which

they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the

written procedures of the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department, and was promulgated

by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Gilbert Miller, III, Joseph C.

O'Leary, Michael Silvert, Fred Catalano, Robert M. Balicki, Darryl Johnson and Carol

. ,

Pistorio.

It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals

charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized

suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the policy of Gloucester

County and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department to force those charged with

minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Gloucester

County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary.

Sandra King Wilson and Joseph DePietro bring this action on behalf of

themselves, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after

being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their

civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. Both of these

individuals were charged with misdemeanor and/or violation offenses, and both were

subject to strip searches, in violation of their right against unreasonable searches under

the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. They seek monetary damages

2

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 3 of 22
for themselves and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriff's Department's policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Gloucester County, Gloucester County Corrections and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs Sandra King Wilson and Joseph DePietro complain as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions .of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Sandra King Wilson ("Wilson") is 50 years old and resides in Camden, New Jersey. Ms. Wilson was arrested on or about September 2005and placed in the Gloucester County Correctional Facility on charges of shop lifting, violation of probation for shop lifting and municipal detainers.
3

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 4 of 22
4. Plaintiff Joseph DePietro ("DePietro") resides in Gloucester County, New Jersey. DePietro was arrested on or about January 24, 2006 and transported to the Gloucester County Jail because of purported child support arrears.
5. Defendant County of Gloucester (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Gloucester County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Gloucester County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the. rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the JJnited States and of the State of New Jersey.
6. The Gloucester County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Gloucester County Jail ("GCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Gloucester, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the GCJ,
and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all
Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the GCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of
4

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 5 of 22

Gloucester, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the GCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
7. Defendant Gloucester County Correctional Facility (the "Jail" or "GCCF") is a county governmental organization and exists under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Department and GCCF, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Gloucester County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Gloucester County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department and GCCF personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
S. Defendant Gilbert Miller ("Sheriff Miller") is the duly elected Sheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Miller's principal place of business is the Criminal Justice Complex, HunterlEuclid Street, Woodbury, NJ OS096. Sheriff Miller is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Joseph C. O'Leary, Jr. ("Undersheriff O'Leary") is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff O'Leary's principal place of business is the Criminal Justice

5

j

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 6 of 22
Complex, HunterlEuciid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Undersheriff O'Leary is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Michael Silvert ("Undersheriff Silvert") is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Silvert's principal place of business is the Criminal Justice Complex, Hunter/Euclid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Undersheriff Silvert is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant Fred Catalano, ("Officer Catalano") is the duly appointed <;:hief Sheriff's Officer of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees· over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Officer Catalano's principal place of business is Criminal Justice Complex, HunterlEuciid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Officer Catalano is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Defendant Robert M. Balicki ("Director Balicki") is the duly appointed Director of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control.· Director Balicki's principal place of business is the Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Director Balicki is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
13. Defendant Darryl Johnson ("Warden Johnson") is the duly appointed Warden of the Gloucester Couilty Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Warden Johnson's principal place of business is the
6

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 7 of 22 Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Warden Johnson is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Carol Pistorio ("Captain Pistorio") is the duly appointed Captain of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Captain Pistorio's principal place of business is the Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Captain Pistorio is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
15. Collectively, Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O'Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants."
:
7

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 8 of 22
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 16. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(l), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federai Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Gloucester County Jail. 17. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Gloucester County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department and the County of Gloucester. The class period commences on March 22, 2004 and extends to the date on which the Gloucester County Sheriffs Departrnent and/or the County of Gloucester are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all oftheir respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 18. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 19. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail every month all of whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on mUltiple occasions.
8

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 9 of 22
20. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Gloucester County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
21. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants' conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody' of the Gloucester County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the· Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the classmembers.
23. The representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
24. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiffs are being represented by William Riback; Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo
9

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 10 of 22

Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm, PLLC; Elmer Robert Keach, III; and Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC.
25. William Riback is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has successfully litigated class actions in both state and federal courts in a number of jurisdictions across the country.
26. Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles 1. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, have extensive experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before law enforcement authorities and in proceedings before the United States Congress. Cuneo and LaDuca have successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer protection and products liability in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In addition to this experience, Cuneo and LaDuca are co-counsel in several strip-search class actions, with Mr. Keach, one of which was recently certified in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the County of Schenectady and other related Defendants.
27. Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm with offices in Cherry Hill and New York City, are both experienced civil rights and class action attorneys. Mr. Lesser is one of this country's premier class action attorneys having successfully litigated civil rights, consumer protection and products liability class actions against Fortune 500 companies in courts across the country, including both New Jersey state and federal courts. Ms. Rudich has litigated scores of individual and class action civil rights cases against a number of Defendants in over ten jurisdictions throughout the United States.
28. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search

10

I

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 11 of 22
cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady School District, and was lead counsel in the Rensselaer County Jail strip search class action that recently settled.
29. Gary E. Mason is one of this country's premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation.
,30. In short, Plaintiffs' counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Gloucester County, the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
31. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiffs' seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail. In short, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Gloucester County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
32. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
II

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 12 of 22
33. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Gloucester County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
34. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
35. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants' flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for at least the past 2 years.
12

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 13 of 22
36. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 37. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 38. Upon information and belief, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom ·or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Gloucester County Jail and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon o"r contraband. 39. Upon information and belief, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Gloucester County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 40. The County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Correctional Facility and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know
13

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 14 of 22
that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the Gloucester Police's written policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department.
41. The Defendants' written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
42. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
43. Upon information and belief, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pretrial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
44. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Gloucester County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable
14

-, Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 15 of 22
suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de/acto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searcheseach member of the class, including every named Plaintiff - has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs A. SANDRA KING WILSON
46. Sandra King Wilson was arrested on September 2005suspicion of 4th degree shoplifting and violation of probation which arose from a guilty plea to shoplifting in 2003.
47. Upon arrival of the Gloucester County Correctional Facility Ms. Wilson was required to undress in the shower area in the presence of an observing Correctional Officer. Ms. Wilson was required to bend down and cough while manually required to spread her buttocks. Ms. Wilson was then required to lift her breasts one at a time.
48. Defendants strip searched her according to policy without reasonable suspicion of drug or weapon possession.
49. As a direct 'and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff s Department policy, practice and custom, Wilson has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
IS

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 16 of 22
B. JOSEPH DEPIETRO 50. Mr. DePietro IS a disabled person receiving Social Security Disability benefits. 51. Mr. Depietro turned himself III to the Gloucester Sheriffs Office on outstanding child support warrants. 52. According to the Gloucester County Policy, Mr. Depietro was strip searched in the presence and requirement of Gloucester County Correctional Officers. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, DePietro has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law -54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs I through 50. 55. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
16

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 17 of 22
56. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Gloucester County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiffs and Class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Gloucester County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
57. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Correctional Facility and the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department. As such, the County of Gloucester is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
58. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O'Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, .Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Gloucester County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Miller, O'Leary, Silvert, Catalano and Balicki are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
59. Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O'Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio knew that the GC]'s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
60. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
17

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 18 of 22
61. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
-- Demand for Declaratory Judgment -62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 58. 63. The policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department, the County of Gloucester and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Gloucester County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons. 64. Plaintiffs and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 61.
66. The policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department, the County of Gloucester and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip
18

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 19 of 22
searches of all individuals placed into the Gloucester County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
67. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Gloucester County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiffs.
68. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
69. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Gloucester County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 70. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional.
19

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 20 of 22
71. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriff s Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Gloucester County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 72. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Wilson and DePietro, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs' First
Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis. C. A judgment against Defendant Gilbert Miller, III on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action. D. A judgment against Defendant Joseph C. O'Leary, Jr. on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action. E. A judgment against Defendant Michael Silvert on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action.
20

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 21 of 22

F. A judgment against Defendant Fred Catalano on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action.

G. A judgment against Defendant Robert M. Balicki on Plaintiffs' First Cause of

Action.

H. A judgment against Defendant Darryl Johnson on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action.

1. A judgment against Defendant Carol Pistorio on Plaintiffs' First Cause of

Action.

1. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of

Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department's policy, practice

and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the

Gloucester County Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of

contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

K. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with

misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion

that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other

contraband.

L. A monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

Dated: March 21, 2006 Trenton, NJ

Respectfully submitted by:
lSI William Riback William Riback, Esquire Bar # 01358-1994 527 Cooper Street, 2nd Floor Camden, New Jersey 08102 856.342.9700

21

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 1 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 22 of 22
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 202.789.3960 Seth R. Lesser, Esquire Fran 1. Rudich, Esquire LOCKS LAW FIRM 457 Haddenfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 856.663.8200
-and110 E. 55th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 212.838.3333 Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany, NY 12207 518.434.1718 Gary E. Mason, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.429.2290
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS
22

 Oct-ll-06 CD4a:5sTe~m1:06Fro-mc-vCU-0NE1O3W6A8L-DJ~NEI,-AGMILBDERT, LDLPocument 22 +ZOFHBileHd961D0/24/2006T-SS4 PaPg, 0e031 of 2HBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SANDRA KING WILSON, et aI., Plainti ffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, et al.
Defendants.

)
) ) ) Case No. 06-cv-01368 (JEI)(AMD)
)
) ORDER
) ) )

THIS MAITER, having been brought before the Court by Charles LaDuca,
Esquire, counsel for plaintiffs, pursuant to L.Civ.R. 37.1, with respect to a discovery
dispute between the parties concerning written discovery and the scheduling of depositions; and

THE COURT, having conducted a conference call concerning these disputes on

October 23, 2006, with Mr. LaDuca, William Riback, Esquire and Alexandra Warren,

Esquire participating on behalf of plaintiffs, and Patrick J. Madden, Esquire participating

on behalf of def~ndants;

n-

1!L3iay IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this

of October, 2006 AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defendants shall respond to plaintiffS' interrogatories and request for

production ofdocuments on or by November 6,2006, with the exception of plaintiffS'

discovery requests seeking booking sheets and other records and information for all pre-

trial detainees charged with misdemeanors, violations, violation of parole, violation of

probation, or held on civil or family court matters at the Gloucester Prison System,

responses to which discovery requests shall be furnished on or by November 13, 2006.

2. DepOSitions shall commence after November 6, 2006.

O,\-Z3-06 C04a:5s7pem1:06FrD-cm-vC-U0NE1O3W6A8L-DJMEANI-' AGMILBDERT, lDLPocument 22 +ZOHFBil9e-3d96100/24/2006T-594 PaPg,0e042 of 2HSS
3. The parties shall agree to a deposition schedule whereby the witnesses shall be okposed in the following order:
a. class representative; b. Defendants' 3O(b)(6) designee;
c. secolld class represerll!tive; and
d. the Warden of the Gloucester CO\ll1ty Do;parbnent of Corrections.
A MARJE DONIO Unit d States Magistrate Judge

 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 24 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 2

PATRICK.J. MADDEN, ESQUIRE MADDEN, MADDEN & DEL DUCA 108 KTNGS HIGHWAY EAST - SUlIE 200 POST OFFTCE BOX 210 HADDONFIELD, NEW JERSEY 08033 TEL: (856) 428-9520
Attorney for The County of Gloucester, Gloucester County Department of Sherift~
Gilhert Miller, III, Joseph C. O'Leary, Jr., Michael Silvert, Fred Cata.la.no, Gloucester County Department of Corrections, Robert M. Balicki, Darryl .Johnson and Carol
Pistorio UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SANDRA KTNG WILSON AND JOSEPH DEPIETRO, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-cv-01368 (JEI) (AMD)

Plainti rf(s),
v,
THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, et aL Defendant(s).

ORDER COMPELLTNG CERTAIN DISCOVERY RELATED TO THE MEDICAL AND MENTAL CONDJTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF SANDRA K. WILSON

.. "".,,, ,,
'''''''''''''''''',"''''''''''.",,''''''''

THIS MATTER, having been hrought before the Court by Patrick J. Madden, Esquire, counsel for the Defendan(s, pUTsuan( (0 L.Civ.R. 37.1 with rcspect to a dispute between (he parties concerning discovery of the medical and mental (reatmen( of the PlaintitT Sandra K. Wilson; and
THE COURT, having conducted a conference call conceming these disputes on December 7, 2006, with Charles LaDuca, Esquire, Alexandra Wamm, Esquire and William Riback, Esquire participating on behalf of Plain(i ITs and Patrick J. Madden, Esquire participating on behalr or Delcndants; alld

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-AMD Document 24 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 2

THE COURT, having considered (he arguments of counsel and f()r further good cause

having been shown,

~2."'!-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this day of December, 2006, as follows:

I. Detendants' application ~eeking the identity of Plaintiffs health care provider,

for tbe ten years past is denied as overbroad.

2. Defendants are entitled to Plaintiffs records of treatment and counseling by

The South Jersey Behavioral Health Resources PACE Program.

3. Defendants arc entitled to documents and information related to any mental

health treatment or counseling from the time period of December 7, 2001 to the present date.

4. Defendants are entitled to production of documents and infonllation pertaining

to Plaintitl's receipt of drug, narcotic or "controlled dangerous substance" treatment and/or

counseling from September 1,2003 to the present date.

5. A copy of this Order may he served upon any health care provider, person or

entity maintaining records as set forth above, together with a subpoena demanding the

production of same.

BY THE COURT:

ANN/MARiE DONIO Unit~d States Magistrate Judge

 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 44 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 971

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SANDRA KING WILSON, and JOSEPH DEPIETRO, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,

:

:

:

HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1368(JEI)

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, et :

al.,

:

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION (Docket No. 30)

:

Defendants.

:

:

APPEARANCES:
LOCKS LAW FIRM By: Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Fran L. Rudich, Esq. 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
-and-
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP By: Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Charles LaDuca, Esq. Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002
-and-
WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC By: William Riback, Esq. 527 Cooper Street, 2nd Floor Camden, NJ 08102
-and-

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 44 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 972
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER KEACH, III, P.C. By: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MADDEN & MADDEN, P.A. By: Patrick J. Madden, Esq. 108 Kings Highway East, Suite 200 P.O. Box 210 Haddonfeld, NJ 08033
Attorneys for Defendants
IRENAS, Senior District Judge: This matter having appeared before the Court on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 30) and the parties’ requests that decision on this motion be held in abeyance; the Court having considered the submissions of the parties, and it appearing that:
1. On September 13, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Docket No. 30; the “Motion”). As of November 16, 2007, the Motion was fully briefed by the parties.
2. Upon the parties’ mutual request, this Court issued an Order on December 4, 2007 that stayed the matter for sixty days while the parties proceeded with settlement mediation (Docket No. 37). The December 4, 2007 Order also provided that the Court would hold its decision on the Motion during this sixty-day period.
3. On March 19, 2008, counsel for Defendants sent a
2

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 44 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 973
letter notifying the Court that the parties sought to continue the stay in the matter pending the parties’ next mediation session on April 30, 2008. Counsel for Defendants later advised the Court that the parties sought to have the Court hold its decision on the Motion until the conclusion of the April 30, 2008 mediation session.
4. By letter dated May 8, 2008, counsel for Defendants advised the Court that the parties continued to make progress during the April 30, 2008 mediation session and that they scheduled another mediation session for July 11, 2008. The May 8, 2008 letter further stated that both parties requested that the Court continue to withhold its decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion until the conclusion of the next mediation session.
5. Discovery in this case has also been stayed pending the completion of the mediation session scheduled for July 11, 2008 or upon further court order pursuant to Magistrate Judge Donio’s Scheduling Order, dated May 7, 2008 (Docket No. 43).
IT IS on this 14th day of May, 2008, ORDERED THAT: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Docket #30)(the “Motion”) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to renew the Motion anytime after the July 11, 2008 mediation session. If Plaintiffs renew the Motion, no party shall be required to re-file any document previously filed in connection 3

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 44 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 974 with the Motion. All materials previously filed shall be deemed re-filed upon the filing of notice of the renewed Motion. Supplemental materials incorporating any subsequent discovery may be filed in support of or in opposition to the renewed Motion.
s/ Joseph E. Irenas
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, S.U.S.D.J.
4

 CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0019of 2P2aPgaeg1eIoDf:212157

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

___________________________________

Sandra King Wilson, and

:

Joseph DePietro,

:

both individually and on behalf of a class of :

others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER,

:

GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT :

OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, :

both individually and in his

:

official capacity as Sheriff of the County of :

Gloucester, JOSEPH C. O’LEARY, JR., :

both individually and in his official capacity :

as Undersheriff of the County of Gloucester, :

MICHAEL SILVERT, both individually :

and in his official capacity as Undersheriff :

of the County of Gloucester, FRED

:

CATALANO, both individually and in his :

official capacity as Chief Sheriff’s Officer of:

the County of Gloucester, and

:

GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT :

OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M.

:

BALICKI, both individually and in his :

official capacity as Director of the

:

Department of Corrections of Gloucester :

County, DARRYL JOHNSON, both

:

Individually and in his official capacity as :

Warden of the Department of Corrections :

of Gloucester County, CAROL PISTORIO :

both individually and in her official capacity :

as Captain of the Department of Corrections :

of Gloucester County,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Case No: 06-cv-01368 (JEI) (AMD) CLASS ACTION AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0029of 2P2aPgaeg2eIoDf:212158
INTRODUCTION This is a class action lawsuit brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of New Jersey. For at least the past two years prior to the date of the commencement of this litigation, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Gloucester County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Gilbert Miller, III, Joseph C. O’Leary, Michael Silvert, Fred Catalano, Robert M. Balicki, Darrul Johnson and Carol Pistorio.
It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the policy of Gloucester County and the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Gloucester County Jail (“GCJ”)is clearly illegal.
Sandra King Wilson and Joseph DePietro (together, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. Both of these individuals were charged with misdemeanor and/or violation offenses, and
2

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0039of 2P2aPgaeg3eIoDf:212159
both were subject to strip searches, in violation of their rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. They seek monetary damages for themselves and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriffs Department’s policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Gloucester County, Gloucester County Corrections and the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as background, Plaintiffs Sandra King Wilson and Joseph DePietro complain as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) inasmuch as Plaintiffs’ state law claim is so related to the federal claims within such original jurisdiction that it forms part of the same case or controversy as do the federal claims. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
3

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0049of 2P2aPgaeg4eIoDf:212160
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Sandra King Wilson (“Wilson”) is 50 years old and resides in Camden, New Jersey. Ms. Wilson was arrested on or about September 2005 and placed in the Gloucester County Correctional Facility on charges of shop lifting, violation of probation for shop lifting and municipal detainers. 4. Plaintiff Joseph DePietro (“DePietro”) resides in Gloucester County, New Jersey. DePietro was arrested on or about January 24, 2006 and transported to the Gloucester County Jail because of purported child support arrears. 5. Defendant County of Gloucester (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff’s Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Gloucester County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the Gloucester County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey. 6. The Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s Department”) is a County Sheriff’s Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff’s Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Gloucester County Jail (“GCJ”). At all times relevant hereto,
4

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0059of 2P2aPgaeg5eIoDf:212161
Defendant Sheriff’s Department, together with the County of Gloucester, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the GCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the GCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff’s Department, together with the County of Gloucester, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel employed in the GCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
7. Defendant Gloucester County Correctional Facility (the “Jail” or “GCCF”) is a county governmental organization and exists under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff’s Department and GCCF, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Gloucester County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the Gloucester County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Gloucester County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department and GCCF personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
8. Defendant Gilbert Miller (“Sheriff Miller”) is the duly elected Sheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Miller’s principal place of business is the Criminal Justice Complex, Hunter/Euclid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Sheriff Miller is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
5

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0069of 2P2aPgaeg6eIoDf:212162
9. Defendant Joseph C. O’Leary, Jr. (“Undersheriff O’Leary”) is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff O’Leary’s principal place of business is the Criminal Justice Complex, Hunter/Euclid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Undersheriff O’Leary is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Michael Silvert (“Undersheriff Silvert”) is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Silvert’s principal place of business is the Criminal Justice Complex, Hunter/Euclid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Undersheriff Silvert is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant Fred Catalano, (“Officer Catalano”) is the duly appointed Chief Sheriff’s Officer of Gloucester County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Officer Catalano’s principal place of business is Criminal Justice Complex, Hunter/Euclid Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Officer Catalano is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Defendant Robert M. Balicki (“Director Balicki”) is the duly appointed Director of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Director Balicki’s principal place of business is the Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Director Balicki is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
6

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0079of 2P2aPgaeg7eIoDf:212163
13. Defendant Darryl Johnson (“Warden Johnson”) is the duly appointed Warden of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Warden Johnson’s principal place of business is the Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Warden Johnson is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Carol Pistorio (“Captain Pistorio”) is the duly appointed Captain of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the GCJ exercises custodial or other control. Captain Pistorio’s principal place of business is the Gloucester County Jail, 70 Hunter Street, Woodbury, NJ, 08096. Captain Pistorio is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
15. Collectively, Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O’Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 16. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Gloucester County Jail. 17. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail after being charged with nonindictable offenses (such as disorderly persons offenses, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions and/or civil commitments) or other minor offenses and were or will be strip searched upon their
7

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0089of 2P2aPgaeg8eIoDf:212164
entry into the Gloucester County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Gloucester. The class period commences on March 22, 2004 and extends to the date on which the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Gloucester are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 18. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 19. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. There are hundreds and probably thousands of people who have been arrested for misdemeanor violations, traffic infractions, failing to make payment on outstanding traffic violations, failing to make payment on outstanding fines or other minor nonindictable crimes who were strip searched under the circumstances described herein. 20. Joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Gloucester County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually. 21. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were
8

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0099of 2P2aPgaeg9eIoDf:212165
charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the GCJ, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
22. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
23. The representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
24. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiffs are being represented by William Riback; Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm, PLLC; Elmer Robert Keach, III; and Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC.
25. William Riback is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has successfully litigated class actions in both state and federal courts in a number of jurisdictions across the country.
26. Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, have extensive experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before law enforcement authorities and in proceedings before the United States Congress. Cuneo and LaDuca have successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer protection and products liability in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In addition to this experience, Cuneo and LaDuca are co-counsel in several strip-search class actions, with Mr. Keach,
9

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00190 of P22agPea1g0eIoDf:212166
one of which was recently certified in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the County of Schenectady and other related Defendants.
27. Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Klafter Olsen & Lesser with offices in Rye Brook, New York, Haddonfield, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., are both experienced civil rights and class action attorneys. Mr. Lesser is one of this country’s premier class action attorneys having successfully litigated civil rights, consumer protection and products liability class actions against Fortune 500 companies in courts across the country, including both New Jersey state and federal courts. Ms. Rudich has litigated scores of individual and class action civil rights cases against a number of Defendants in over ten jurisdictions throughout the United States.
28. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady School District, and was lead counsel in the Rensselaer County Jail strip search class action that recently settled.
29. Gary E. Mason is one of this country’s premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation.
10

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00191 of P22agPea1g1eIoDf:212167
30. In short, Plaintiffs’ counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Gloucester County, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
31. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the GCJ. In short, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Gloucester County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
32. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
33. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Gloucester County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
34. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that
11

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00192 of P22agPea1g2eIoDf:212168
they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
35. There are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for at least the past 2 years.
36. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 37. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 38. In turn, under New Jersey law, specifically N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c), any person who is deprived of substantive due process or equal protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey has a claim under State law.
12

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00193 of P22agPea1g3eIoDf:212169
39. The County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Gloucester County Jail and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband.
40. The County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Gloucester County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as “strip searches.”
41. The County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Correctional Facility and the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the Gloucester Police’s written policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department.
42. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
13

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00194 of P22agPea1g4eIoDf:212170
43. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
44. Upon information and belief, the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
45. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the GCJ. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches – each member of the class, including every named Plaintiff – has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
14

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00195 of P22agPea1g5eIoDf:212171
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs A. SANDRA KING WILSON
47. Sandra King Wilson was arrested on September 2005 suspicion of shoplifting and violation of probation which arose from a guilty plea to shoplifting in 2003.
48. Upon arrival of the Gloucester County Correctional Facility Ms. Wilson was required to undress in the shower area in the presence of an observing Correctional Officer. Ms. Wilson was required to bend down and cough while manually required to spread her buttocks. Ms. Wilson was then required to lift her breasts one at a time.
49. Defendants strip searched her according to policy without reasonable suspicion of drug or weapon possession.
50. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Wilson has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
B. JOSEPH DEPIETRO 51. Mr. DePietro is a disabled person receiving Social Security Disability benefits. 52. Mr. Depietro turned himself in to the Gloucester Sheriff’s Office on outstanding child support warrants. 53. According to the Gloucester County Policy, Mr. Depietro was strip searched in the presence and requirement of Gloucester County Correctional Officers. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, DePietro has
15

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00196 of P22agPea1g6eIoDf:212172
suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law -55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 54. 56. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons. 57. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Gloucester County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiffs and Class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Gloucester County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 58. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Correctional Facility and the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department. As such, the County of Gloucester is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
16

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00197 of P22agPea1g7eIoDf:212173
59. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O’Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Gloucester County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. .
60. Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff O’Leary, Undersheriff Silvert, Officer Catalano, Director Balicki, Warden Johnson and Captain Pistorio knew that the GCJ’s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
61. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Statutory Rights Under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act —Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights, Immunities, or Privileges
under the New Jersey Constitution— 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth therein.
64. N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) provides a right of action for any citizen who is deprived of any substantive due process or equal protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey, or whose exercise or enjoyment of those
17

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00198 of P22agPea1g8eIoDf:212174
substantive rights, privileges or immunities has been interfered with or attempted to be interfered with, by threats, intimidation or coercion by a person acting under color of law.
65. The actions of the Defendants as detailed above violated Plaintiffs’ and the class’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as already set forth, as well as under the analogous provisions of New Jersey Constitution, particularly Article I paragraph 7 of same. It was neither objectively reasonable nor constitutional for the Jail’s personnel to strip-search Plaintiffs and all the members of the class based on their arrests for non-indictable offenses. It was neither objectively reasonable nor constitutional for the Jail’s personnel personnel to conduct such search or to have a policy or practice permitting such searches.
66. The policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Gloucester and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Gloucester County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
67. Plaintiffs and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 67.
18

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e0019 of P22agPea1g9eIoDf:212175
69. The policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Gloucester and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Gloucester County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
70. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Gloucester County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiffs.
71. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
72. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Gloucester, the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Gloucester County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 73. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional.
19

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00290 of P22agPea2g0eIoDf:212176
74. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Gloucester County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 75. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Wilson and DePietro, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis. C. A judgment against Defendant Gilbert Miller, III on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action. D. A judgment against Defendant Joseph C. O’Leary, Jr. on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action. E. A judgment against Defendant Michael Silvert on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action.
20

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00291 of P22agPea2g1eIoDf:212177

F. A judgment against Defendant Fred Catalano on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action.

G. A judgment against Defendant Robert M. Balicki on Plaintiffs’ First

Cause of Action.

H. A judgment against Defendant Darryl Johnson on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action.

I. A judgment against Defendant Carol Pistorio on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action.

J. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of

Gloucester and the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, practice and custom

of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Gloucester County Jail,

regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and

improper.

K. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or

minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the

search is concealing weapons or other contraband.

L. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

M. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 5, 2009

Respectfully submitted by:

_______________________________ Seth Lesser
21

CasCeas1e:016:-0c6v-c0v1-306183-6J8E-IJ-KEMI-AWMDDocDumoceunmt e6n2t 6F0il-e2d 03F/0il9e/d0903/P05a/g2e00292 of P22agPea2g2eIoDf:212178
Fran Rudich Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Telecopier: (914) 934-9220
William A. Riback WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC 132 Haddon Avenue Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856)857-0008 Telecopier: (856) 857-0028
Jonathan W. Cuneo Charles LaDuca Alexandra C. Warren CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Telecopier: (202)789-1813
Elmer Robert Keach, III LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Telephone: (518)434-1718 Telecopier: (518)770-1558
Gary E. Mason, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202)429-2290
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS
22

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 62-1 Filed 03/09/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1179
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 9, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF
system on the parties in said action, via ECF by electronically filing, as set forth below:
Patrick J. Madden, Esquire MADDEN & MADDEN 108 King Highway East, Suite 200 P.O. Box 210 Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033-0389
Richard Goldstein, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East Suite 300 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
Attorney for Defendants
____/s/ Seth R. Lesser____ Seth R. Lesser

 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 3087 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 2 of 8

IUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

)

Sandra King Wilson, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffss,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, et aI., )

)

Defendants.

)

~~)

Civil Action
No.: 06-cv-01368 (JEI-KMW)

;fltJ&LOj
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of

the Settlement Agreement; and the parties having filed the Settlement Agreement executed

September 9,2009, as Exhibit A to the Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement in

satisfaction of Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and the Court having

reviewed and considered the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement as set forth in the

Settlement Agreement; and the Court finding it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter;

and for good cause appearing that the tenns and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement

were the result of good faith, arm's length settlement negotiations between competent and

experienced counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants,

AND THE COURT FURTHER HAVING previously issued an "Order CertifYing a

Plaintiff Class and Appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Class Counsel" dated March 30, 2009 which

certified a Class and having found Plaintiffs Sandra King Wilson and Joseph DePietro to be

adequate class representatives for the Settlement Class and appointing their counsel Class

Counsel,

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 3088
Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 3 of 8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
t. Capitalized tenns used in this Order have the meanings assigned to them in the
Settlement Agreement and this Order. 2. The tenns of the parties' Settlement Agreement are hereby conditionally
approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing provided
for below. The Court finds that said settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness and that notice of the proposed settlement should be given as provided in
this Order. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, pending final approval by this Court of the Settlement Agreement and consistent with the Court's March 30,2009 Order the Court certifies the following settlement class: 1
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Gloucester County Jail after being charged with nonindictahle offenses (such as disorderly persons offenses, traffic infractions, andlor civil commitments) and were strip searched upon their entry into the Gloucester County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Gloucester County Department of Corrections and the County of Gloucester. The class period commences on March 24, 2004 and extends until February 29,2009. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 4. The Court approves the Class Notice of Settlement attached hereto as Exhibit A
and the Summary Notice for Publication attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Court also
approves the Notice Program as set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement.
5. If the Settlement Agreement is tenninated or not consummated for any reason
I The settlement class definition utilized herein differs from that the class definition previously adopted by the Court only with respect to the class period, which commenced on March 22, 2004 and extended until the date that Defendants ceased enforcing their unconstitutional policy and practice of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion and with respect to the entity whose policy and practices were at issue, the Department ofColTections, not the Sheriffs Department
2

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3089
Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 4 of 8
whatsoever, the parties reserve all oftheir rights, including the right to continue with the litigation pending at the time ofthe settlement should the Settlement Agreement not be conswnmated. 6. Beginning no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement (the commencement of which shall constitute the "Notice Date"), Class Counsel shall cause to be disseminated the notices, substantially in the fonn attached as Exhibits A and B hereto, in the manner set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement. Such Notice Program will be completed expeditiously pursuant to the tenns of the Settlement Agreement. Class Members will have forty-five (45) days from the Notice Date to opt out or to object, and one hundred and fifty (150) days from the Notice Date to file claims. At or before the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiff andlor the Claims Administrator shall serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the required notice dissemination. 7. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement as filed with the Court is hereby found to be the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New Jersey and all other applicable laws. The Notices are accurate, objective, infonnative and provide Class members with all of the infonnation necessary to make an infonned decision regarding their participation in the Settlement and its fairness. 8. Class Counsel is authorized to retain The Garden City Group as the Claims
3

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 3090 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 5 of 8

Administrator in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.

Requests (or Exclusion tram the Settlement Class 9. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded ("opt out") from the Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, so that it is received by the Claims Administrator at the address indicated in the Notice on or before the close of the opt out period. The Request for Exclusion shall fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Members of the Settlement Class may not exclude themselves by filing Requests for Exclusion as a group or class, but must in each instance individually and personally execute a Request for Exclusion and timely transmit it to the Claims Administrator. 10. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person objected to the Settlement and whether or not such person made a claim upon, or participated in, the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

The Final Approval Hearing

II. A hearing on final settlement approval (the "Final Approval Hearing") is hereby

.d; 10:00...M. 01\ t1wrdM!, MtJJd... I~) .;(DtO

scheduled to be held before this Court!jl:(

,~ to consider the

fairness, the reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the dismissal with

prejudice of this class action with respect to the Released Parties that are Defendants

herein, and the entty of final judgment in this class action. Class Counsel's application

4

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 3091 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 6 of 8

for award of attorney's fees and costs shall be heard at the time of the Final Approval

Hearing,

12, The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice,

but the Final Approval Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without

further notice to the members of the Settlement Class other than that which may be

posted by the Court Class Counsel will advise members of the settlement class of any

scheduling issues by way of the settlement website.

13. Any person or entity that does not elect to he excluded from the Settlement Class

may, but need not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement Class

members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented

by Class Counsel.

14. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but

need not, submit comments or objections to the proposed Settlement Any Class member

may objeet to the proposed Settlement, entry of Final Order and Judgment approving the

settlement, and Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses by serving a written

objection.

15. Any Class member making the objection (an "objector") must sign the objection

personally. An objection must state why the objector objects to the proposed Settlement

and provide the basis to support such position. If an objector intends to appear personally

at the Final Approval Hearing, the objector must include with the objection a notice of

the objector's intent to appear at the hearing.

16. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must be filed no later than

~6rII t~v

(~o~
e (4 days from the Notice Date.

If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than

5

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 3092
Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 7 of 8
one Class Member, counsel must identifY each such Class Member and each Class
Member must have complied with the requirements of this Order. These documents must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the following address:
Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Mitchell H. Cohen United States Courthouse I John F. Gerry Plaza Camden, New Jersey 08101
17. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must also be mailed to
Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant at the address listed below:
CLASS COUNSEL:
Seth Lesser, Esquire Fran Rudich, Esquire KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Place, Suite 350 Rye Brook, New York 10573
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
Patrick J. Madden, Esquire MADDEN & MADDEN, PA 108 Kings Highway East, Suite 200 Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Joseph Santarone, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.A. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
18. Only Class Members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of
objection shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member
who does not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement, entry of
Final Judgment, or to Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in this Order,
6

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 82 Filed 12/22/09 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 3093 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 80-6 Filed 09/14/09 Page 8 of 8

shall be deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or

otherwise.

19. Persons wishing to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing are required to file

written comments or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their

intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. Settlement Class members need not

appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.

20. All members of the Settlement Class who do not personally and timely request to

be excluded from the Class are enjoined from proceeding against the Defendants for the

claims made in the Complaint.

Other Provisions

21. Upon approval of the settlement provided for in this Settlement Agreement, each

and every time period and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if

expressly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court.

22. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the Settlement Class, as

well as administering the Settlement Agreement, shall be paid as set forth in the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _~_--'::'.......j_ __

A"\ \
i ;\ 1\\\7!(\\
__ j fft/!:J;';I.i\\ \.JIji\\L~ii\Jhi /lJd '''~

_~~

The/Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

Serijor United States District Judge.

7

 Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 91 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 3253

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SANDRA KING WILSON and JOSEPH DEPIETRO, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, et al.,
Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1368 (JEI)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FEES TO
SETTLEMENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND AWARD TO PROPOSED CY PRES RECIPIENT
(Dkt. No. 89)

APPEARANCES:
LOCKS LAW FIRM By: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
and CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP By: Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq., Charles LaDuca, Esq., Alexandra C.
Warren, Esq. 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002
and LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C. By: Elmer Robert Keach, III 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010
and WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC By: William Riback 527 Cooper Street, 2nd Floor Camden, NJ 08102
Counsel for Plaintiffs
MADDEN & MADDEN, P.A. By: Patrick J. Madden, Esq. 108 Kings Highway East, Suite 200

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 91 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 3254
Post Office Box 210 Haddonfield, NJ 08033
and MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA By: Richard L. Goldstein, Esq. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Counsel for Defendants IRENAS, Senior District Judge:
This matter having appeared before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Additional Fees to Settlement Claims Administrator and Award to Proposed Cy Pres Recipient (Dkt. No. 89); the Court having considered Plaintiffs’ submissions; the Defendants agreeing to Plaintiffs’ request; and it appearing that:
1. This case is a class action against the Defendant, County of Gloucester. Plaintiffs alleged that the County had an unlawful strip search policy that violated the class members’ rights and entitled Plaintiffs and class members to damages.
2. On March 25, 2010, this Court gave final approval to the proposed Settlement, in which Defendant agreed to change its strip search policy and provide Plaintiffs and class members with monetary damages in the amount of $4,000,000.
3. Pursuant to the Settlement, the class representatives each received an incentive payment of $15,000, and class counsel was awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,154,646.75 and expenses in the amount of $44,603.25. In addition, $274,995.79 was deducted to cover the Garden City Group’s (“GCG”)

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 91 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3255
administrative expenses. 4. Class members were entitled to receive their pro rata
share of the settlement fund after the above amounts were deducted. Approximately 3,510 class members received payments of $711.01.
5. As of July 31, 2012, $93,900.59 remained in the settlement fund. GCG re-issued a check to one class member, which reduced the amount by $711.01.
6. While completing the initial distribution, GCG performed a significant amount of post-distribution work by reaching out to class members to cash their checks and performing several fraud investigations in connection with checks cashed by persons other than the class members. Because GCG exceeded its estimated fees and expenses by approximately $16,867.36, class counsel has petitioned the Court to approve an additional fee to GCG in that amount. Defendants have agreed to this request.
7. The parties also request that the remaining balance in the settlement fund, approximately $76,322, be paid to Gloucester County as a cy pres recipient.
IT IS on this 13th day of November, 2012, ORDERED THAT: 1. The Garden City Group shall receive an additional fee in the amount of $16,867.36. 2. The remaining balance in the settlement fund of

Case 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW Document 91 Filed 11/13/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 3256
approximately $76,322 shall be paid to Gloucester County as a cy pres recipient.
/s/ Joseph E. Irenas JOSEPH E. IRENAS, S.U.S.D.J.

 Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 1 of 12
CLOSED,RULE16,SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Camden) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−01368−JEI−KMW

WILSON et al v. THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER et al Assigned to: Judge Joseph E. Irenas Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Movant

Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Date Terminated: 03/25/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

VERNON JONES

represented by CARMEN A. MALIGNAGGI 25 NEWTON AVENUE P.O. BOX 581 WOODBURY, NJ 08096 (856) 853−8080 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SANDRA KING WILSON

represented by SETH R. LESSER KLAFTER OLSEN &LESSER, LLP 2 International Place Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 914−934−9200 Email: slesser@klafterolsen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM A. RIBACK WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC 132 HADDON AVENUE HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033 (856) 857−0008 Fax: (856) 857−0028 Email: ribacklaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELMER ROBERT KEACH , III 1040 RIVERFRONT CENTER PO BOX 70 AMSTERDAM, NY 12010 (518) 434−1718 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOSEPH DEPIETRO both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

represented by SETH R. LESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM A. RIBACK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELMER ROBERT KEACH , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 2 of 12 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER
Defendant GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF
Defendant GILBERT MILLER, III both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Gloucester
Defendant JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR. both individually and in his official capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Gloucester
Defendant MICHAEL SILVERT both individually and in his official

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN MADDEN &MADDEN, PA 108 KINGS HIGHWAY EAST SUITE 200 PO BOX 210 HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033−0389 (856) 428−9520 Email: pjm@maddenmadden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN &GOGGIN, PA WOODLAND FALLS CORPORATE PARK 200 LAKE DRIVE EAST SUITE 300 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 414−6000 Email: rlgoldstein@mdwcg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 3 of 12

capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Gloucester

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FRED CATALANO both individually and in his official capacity as Chief Sheriff's Officer of the County of Gloucester

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ROBERT M. BALICKI both individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Corrections of Gloucester County

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DARRYL JOHNSON both individually and in his official capacity as Warden of the Department of Corrections of Gloucester County

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CAROL PISTORIO both individually and in her official capacity as Captain of Department of Corrections of Gloucester County

represented by PATRICK J. MADDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/22/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M.

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 4 of 12

04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/19/2006 04/28/2006
06/12/2006 06/22/2006
06/23/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/18/2006
08/18/2006
08/18/2006
08/21/2006

BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 304489.) JURY DEMAND, filed by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO.(gg, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
2 Letter from William Riback for issuance of summons. (ar1, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
Summons Issued as to GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF. Days Due − 20. (ar1, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III on behalf of all plaintiffs (KEACH, ELMER) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS served on 4/25/2006, answer due 5/15/2006; THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER served on 4/25/2006, answer due 5/15/2006; GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF served on 4/25/2006, answer due 5/15/2006. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
5 CONSENT ORDER permitting defts. to file an answer until 6/15/06. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 6/12/06. (ar1, ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR.(MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
7 ORDER Setting Initial Scheduling Conference for 7/25/2006 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 6/23/06. (ar1, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
8 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Initial Scheduling Conference is rescheduled for 8/1/2006 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 7/11/06. (sb) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by SETH R. LESSER on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann Marie Donio : Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/1/2006. (jm1, ) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 11/3/2006 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Discovery due by 1/30/2007.. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 8/1/06. (sb) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice alexandra coler by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration alexandra coler# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice charles laduca by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration Charles LaDuca# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration Fran Rudich# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
Setting Deadlines as to 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich, 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice charles laduca, 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice alexandra coler. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2006 before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. PLEASE BE ADVISED

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 5 of 12

09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/19/2006
09/26/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/12/2006 10/13/2006
10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/22/2006 01/29/2007 01/30/2007

THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (db, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
14 Certification of william riback on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO Re 13 Motion for Leave to Appear. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
15 Certification of william riback on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO Re 11 Motion for Leave to Appear. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
16 Certification of william riback on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO Re 12 Motion for Leave to Appear. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
17 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Alexandra Coler Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, granting 12 Motion for Charles Laduca Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, granting 13 Motion for Fran Rudich Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 09/19/06. (db, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 305344 received from attorney Fran Rudich (db, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 305363 received from attorney Alexandra C. Warren (db, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee as to Charles Laduca, Esq.: $ 150, receipt number 305363 (gn) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by ALEXANDRA COLER WARREN on behalf of all plaintiffs (WARREN, ALEXANDRA) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Please be advised the Attorneys admitted to appear pro hac vice, may have local counsel file a request for them to recieve notice of electronic filings. They are not permitted to file documents electronically. Re: Notice of Appearance, Document 18. (db, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
19 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Warren to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) Additional attachment(signature page) added on 10/25/2006 (db, ). (Entered: 10/19/2006)
20 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Charles LaDuca to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) Additional attachment(signature page) added on 10/25/2006 (db, ). (Entered: 10/19/2006)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/7/2006 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 10/24/06. (sb) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
22 ORDER, Re: Discovery . Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 10/24/06. (db, ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann Marie Donio : Status Conference held on 12/7/2006. (jm1, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 1/29/2007 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 12/07/06. (db, ) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
24 ORDER compelling certain discovery related to the medical and mental conditions of the plaintiff SANDRA K. WILSON. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 12/22/06. (db, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann Marie Donio : Status Conference held on 1/29/2007. (jm1, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 5/14/2007 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Final Pretrial Conference set for

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 6 of 12

03/01/2007 04/24/2007 04/26/2007
05/14/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/08/2007
09/04/2007
09/07/2007 09/13/2007 09/13/2007
09/14/2007 10/03/2007

12/6/2007 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Amended Pleadings due by 2/28/2007. Discovery due by 5/30/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 10/30/2007. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 01/30/07. (db, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann Marie Donio : Status Conference held on 3/1/2007. (jm1, ) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
26 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney PATRICK J. MADDEN and PATRICK J. MADDEN for MICHAEL SILVERT and FRED CATALANO added. Attorney PATRICK J. MADDEN terminated.. (MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − The (NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE) filed by (P. MADDEN) on (4/24/07) was submitted incorrectly as a (SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY). FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: PLEASE USE THE EVENT (NOTICE, OTHER) IN THE NOTICES CATEGORY WHEN FILING A DOCUMENT OF THIS TYPE. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (db, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann Marie Donio : Status Conference held on 5/14/2007. (jm1, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
27 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Alexander E. Barnett by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Nicholas A. Migliaccio by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
Setting Deadlines as to 28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Nicholas A. Migliaccio, 27 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Alexander E. Barnett. Motion returnable date set for 9/7/2007 before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (sb) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
29 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 28 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Ordered that the attorneys admitted pro hac vice are directed to make payment of $150 made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 9/4/07. (sb) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee recv'd as to Alexander Barnett, Esq and Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq: $ 300, receipt number 306703 (sb) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
30 MOTION to Certify Class by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO.Responses due by 10/5/2007 (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
31 BRIEF in Support re 30 MOTION to Certify Class filed by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Affirmation of Seth R. Lesser# 2 Exhibit A to Lesser Aff.# 3 Exhibit to Lesser Aff.# 4 Exhibit to Lesser Aff.# 5 Exhibit D to Lesser Aff.# 6 Exhibit E to Lesser Aff.# 7 Exhibit E−2 to Lesser Aff.# 8 Exhibit F to Lesser Aff.# 9 Exhibit G to Lesser Aff.# 10 Exhibit H to Lesser Aff.# 11 Exhibit I to Lesser Aff.# 12 Exhibit J to Lesser Aff.# 13 Exhibit K to Lesser Aff.# 14 Exhibit L to Lesser Aff.# 15 Exhibit M to Lesser Aff.# 16 Declaration of William Riback# 17 Text of Proposed Order # 18 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
Setting Deadlines as to 30 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion returnable date set for 10/19/2007 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (sb) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
32 CONSENT ORDER establishing briefing schedule for plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Defendant's brief in opposition due no later than October 26, 2007. Plaintiff's reply due no later than November 16, 2007. The return date of October

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 7 of 12

10/04/2007 10/26/2007
11/16/2007 11/21/2007 11/28/2007 12/04/2007 01/31/2008 03/04/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008
05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/14/2008

19, 2007 is adjourned. The new return date will be November 29, 2007 at 3:00pm. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 10/3/07. (sb) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
Resetting Deadlines as to 30 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 11/29/2007 03:00 PM before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. (sb) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
33 BRIEF in Opposition re 30 MOTION to Certify Class filed by MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Patrick J. Madden and Exhibits 1 and 2# 2 Exhibits 3 through 6# 3 Exhibit 7, Part 1# 4 Exhibit 7, Part 2# 5 Exhibit 8# 6 Exhibit 9 and 10# 7 Exhibits 11 through 17# 8 Exhibit 18, Part 1# 9 Exhibit 18, Part 2# 10 Exhibit 19# 11 Exhibits 20 and 21)(MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
34 RESPONSE in Support re 30 MOTION to Certify Class filed by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certification of Riback# 2 Certification Certification of Wilson)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
35 Letter from Seth R. Lesser. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
36 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/28/2008 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Judge Ann Marie Donio on 11/28/07. (sb) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
37 ORDERED that this matter is stayed for sixty days from the date of this Order while the parties proceed with settlement mediation before former Judge Joel Rosen currently scheduled for January 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 12/4/07. (sb) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
38 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran L. Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
39 SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 3/19/2008 09:45 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 3/4/08. (sb) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
40 SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 5/7/2008 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 3/19/08. (sb) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Status Conference held on 3/19/2008. (jm1, ) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
41 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Charles J. LaDuca to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
42 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Alexandra C. Warren to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Please review the Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF, Docs. 41 , 42 with the case caption: Arthur Graff, et al v. County of Salem, et al (07cv2259) submitted by W. Riback, Esq. on 4/21/2008. If this document was attached in error, PLEASE RESUBMIT THE CORRECT DOCUMENT. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (gn) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Telphone Status Conference held on 5/7/2008. (sb) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
43 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 8/11/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 5/7/2008. (gn) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
44 ORDER Dismissing without prejudice 30 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 5/14/2008. (gn) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 8 of 12

07/11/2008 07/18/2008 07/30/2008 09/18/2008 09/24/2008 09/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/30/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008 11/30/2008
12/03/2008 12/08/2008
01/08/2009
01/08/2009 01/12/2009

45 Letter from Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca LLP. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/18/2008. (sb) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
46 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 9/18/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 7/30/08. (jm1, ) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Settlement Conference held on 9/18/2008. (Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Bush.) (tp ) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 10/29/2008 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Telephone Conference set for 9/29/2008 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 9/24/2008. (tp ) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/29/2008. (sb) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Settlement Conference held on 10/29/2008. (sb) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
Set Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/12/2008 03:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. (sb) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/12/2008. (sb) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
49 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 1/15/2009 12:00 Noon before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 11/13/2008. (nf, ) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
50 NOTICE by SANDRA KING WILSON re 31 Brief in Support of Motion,, 34 Response in Support of Motion, 33 Brief in Opposition to Motion,, of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit decision in Williams v County of Niagara, # 2 Exhibit decision in Florence v County of Burlington et al, # 3 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 11/30/2008)
51 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference for 1/15/2009 is rescheduled for 1/16/2009 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 12/3/2008. (nf, ) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN on behalf of MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR (GOLDSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
53 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certification of Richard Goldstein, Esq., # 3 Certification of Joseph Santarone, Esq., # 4 Certification of John Gonzales, Esq., # 5 Certificate of Service)(GOLDSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference for 1/16/2009 RESCHEDULED for 2/25/2009 12:00 Noon before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Pretrial Factual Discovery extended to 2/17/2009.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 1/8/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 53 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion set for 2/2/2009 before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 9 of 12

02/04/2009 02/05/2009 02/20/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009
03/05/2009 03/06/2009 03/09/2009 03/19/2009 03/20/2009
03/23/2009
03/24/2009

01/12/2009)
55 MOTION to Amend/Correct by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion to Amend, # 2 Certification, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Certificate of Service)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 55 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 3/2/2009 before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
56 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 2/20/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
57 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 2/25/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
58 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/29/2009 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. Pretrial Factual Discovery extended to 3/13/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2009.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 2/25/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/25/2009. (sb, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
59 NOTICE by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO of Second Submission of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Copy of decision in Florence v Burlington County, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Copy of decision in Young v Cook County, # 3 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
60 Letter from Plaintiffs counsel to Judge Donio concerning revised version of amended complaint re 57 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint, as revised)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
61 ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION, Plaintiffs application to file a corrected amended complaint GRANTED, Plaintiff shall file corrected complaint within 10 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio on 3/6/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
62 AMENDED COMPLAINT as permitted by Court order dated March 6 2009 (Docket No 61) against all defendants all defendants., filed by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
63 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel responding to Defendants' Letter of March 16 2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Letter − Plaintiffs' Expert Report)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joseph E. Irenas: Motion Hearing held on 3/20/2009 re 30 MOTION to Certify Class filed by JOSEPH DEPIETRO, SANDRA KING WILSON. Ordered parties may submit supplemental briefing of no more than 3 pages. Ordered decision reserved. (Court Reporter FRANK GABLE.) (lm) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
65 Certification of Patrick J. Madden on behalf of MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Second Citation to Supplemental Authority)(MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
66 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel to Judge Irenas re supplemental authority and Defendants' supplemental submissions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Letter (copy of decision in Jones v Murphy))(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/24/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 10 of 12

03/30/2009 03/30/2009 04/14/2009
04/16/2009 04/21/2009 04/24/2009 04/29/2009 04/29/2009 05/13/2009 05/22/2009 05/29/2009
05/29/2009

67 OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 3/30/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
68 ORDER granting 30 Motion to Certify Class, Order Certifying a Plaintiff Class and Appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Class Counsel. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 3/30/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
69 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR.(MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
70 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Brendan S. Thompson by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 70 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Brendan S. Thompson. Motion set for 5/18/2009 before Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
71 Certification of William Riback on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO Re 70 Motion for Leave to Appear. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
72 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Joseph J. Santarone, Esquire to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (GOLDSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
73 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice John P.Gonzales, Esquire to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (GOLDSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams added. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio no longer assigned to case. (dmw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
74 Letter from Joseph J. Santarone, Re: Correct Email Address (nf, ) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
75 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MICHAEL SILVERT, FRED CATALANO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT M. BALICKI, DARRYL JOHNSON, CAROL PISTORIO, THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, GLOUCESTOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, GILBERT MILLER, III, JOSEPH C. O'LEARY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Brief, # 3 Statement of Material Facts, # 4 Certification of Patrick J. Madden, # 5 Appendix I and Exhibit 1, # 6 Exhibit 2, # 7 Exhibits 3 through 7, # 8 Exhibits 8 through 12, # 9 Exhibit 13, # 10 Exhibits 14 and 15, # 11 Exhibit 16, # 12 Exhibit 17, # 13 Appendix II and Exhibit 18, # 14 Exhibits 19 and 20, # 15 Exhibit 21, # 16 Exhibit 22, # 17 Exhibit 23, # 18 Exhibits 24 through 26, # 19 Exhibit 27 through 29)(MADDEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
76 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. Responses due by 7/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Seth Lesser In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Lesser Certification, # 3 Exhibit B to Lesser Certification, # 4 Exhibit C to Lesser Certification, # 5 Exhibit D to Lesser Certification, # 6 Exhibit E to Lesser Certification, # 7 Exhibit F to Lesser Certification, # 8 Exhibit G to Lesser Certification, # 9 Exhibit H to Lesser Certification, # 10 Exhibit I to Lesser Certification, # 11 Exhibit J to Lesser Certification, # 12 Exhibit K to Lesser Certification, # 13 Exhibit L to Lesser Certification, # 14 Exhibit M to Lesser Certification, # 15 Exhibit N to Lesser Certification, # 16 Exhibit O to Lesser Certification, # 17 Exhibit P to Lesser Certification, # 18 Exhibit Q to Lesser Certification, # 19 Exhibit R to Lesser Certification, # 20 Exhibit S to Lesser Certification, # 21 Exhibit T to Lesser Certification, # 22 Exhibit U to Lesser Certification, # 23 Exhibit V to Lesser Certification, # 24 Exhibit W to Lesser Certification, # 25 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 26 Statement of Undisputed Facts (Rule 56 Statement) In Support of

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 11 of 12

06/01/2009 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 06/22/2009 08/04/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 09/14/2009
09/15/2009 09/21/2009 11/24/2009 12/22/2009 03/15/2010

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 27 Text of Proposed Order, # 28 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 76 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability. Motion set for 7/6/2009 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joseph E. Irenas: Telephone Conference held on 6/19/2009. (Court Reporter FRANK GABLE.) (lm) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
77 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 75 Motion for Summary Judgment and 76 Motion for Summary Judgment. Papers in support of application for preliminary settlement approval due 8/19/2009. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 6/19/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
ORDER The Final Pretrial Conference set for June 29, 2009 has been ADJOURNED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams on 06/22/09. (Powers, Lynda) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
78 Certification of Brendan S. Thompson on behalf of SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO Re 70 Motion for Leave to Appear. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
TEXT ORDER: Deadline to submit papers in support of application for preliminary settlement approval extended to 9/14/2009. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 8/21/2009. (lm) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
79 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Brendan S. Thompson.. Shall remit to New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection the annual payment required. Pay $150.00 to US District Court, etc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams on 08/21/2009. (tf, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
80 MOTION for Settlement for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by SANDRA KING WILSON, JOSEPH DEPIETRO. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Seth R Lesser in support of motion for preliminary approval and sending of notice, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Lesser Certification (Settlement Agreement), # 3 Exhibit 1−A to Lesser Certification (claim form), # 4 Exhibit 1−B to Lesser Certification (long form notice), # 5 Exhibit 1−C to Lesser Certification (proposed final approval order), # 6 Exhibit 1−D to Lesser Certification (proposed preliminary approval order), # 7 Exhibit 1−E to Lesser Certification (short form notice), # 8 Exhibit 1−F to Lesser Certification (plan of distribution), # 9 Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, # 10 Text of Proposed Order, # 11 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 80 MOTION for Settlement for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Motion set for 10/19/2009 before Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
AMENDED Set Deadlines as to 80 MOTION for Settlement for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Motion set for 10/19/2009 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (th, ) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
81 Letter from Plaintiffs Counsel to Judge Irenas re Pending Motion for Preliminary Approval. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
82 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 12/22/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
83 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Other Relief by JOSEPH DEPIETRO, SANDRA KING WILSON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion for Final Approval etc, # 2 Certification of Seth R Lesser in Support of Motion for Final Approval etc, # 3 Exhibit A to Lesser Certification, # 4 Exhibit B to Lesser Certification, # 5 Text of Proposed Order, # 6

Case: 1:06-cv-01368-JEI-KMW As of: 05/08/2013 09:50 PM EDT 12 of 12

03/16/2010 03/18/2010
03/19/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010 04/13/2010
10/15/2010 07/31/2012 08/01/2012
10/15/2012 10/15/2012 11/13/2012 01/10/2013

Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 83 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Other Relief. Motion set for 4/19/2010 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
85 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joseph E. Irenas: Motion Hearing held on 3/18/2010 re 83 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Other Relief filed by JOSEPH DEPIETRO, SANDRA KING WILSON. Opinion read into record. Ordered decision reserved. Order to issue. (Court Reporter CARL NAMI, JR..) (lm) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
84 Certification on behalf of JOSEPH DEPIETRO, SANDRA KING WILSON Re 83 Motion for Settlement,. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
86 ORDER granting 83 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Judgment. Clerk of the Court directed to Close this file. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 3/25/2010. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
***Civil Case Terminated. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
87 Transcript of Proceedings held on 3/18/2010, before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carl J. Nami, Telephone number 856−757−5019. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 5/4/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/14/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/12/2010. (nf, ) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
88 Letter from Carmen A. Malignaggi, Esq. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
89 MOTION for Settlement Petition for Approval of Additional Fees to Settlement Claims Administrator and Award to Proposed Cy Pres Recipient by SANDRA KING WILSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 89 MOTION for Settlement Petition for Approval of Additional Fees to Settlement Claims Administrator and Award to Proposed Cy Pres Recipient. Motion set for 9/4/2012 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (dmr) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
90 MOTION for Assignment of Settlement Funds by VERNON JONES. (dmr) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 90 MOTION for Assignment of Settlement Funds. Motion set for 11/19/2012 before Judge Joseph E. Irenas. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (dmr) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
91 ORDER GRANTING 89 PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FEES TO SETTLEMENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND AWARD TO PROPOSED CY PRES RECIPIENT. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 11/13/2012. (drw) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
92 ORDER granting 90 Motion for Assignment of Settlement Funds; A settlement check in the sum of $771.01 shall be released to Carmen A. Malignaggi as Vernon Jones's assignee. Vernon Jones's right to the settlement funds in this case is extinguished. Signed by Judge Joseph E. Irenas on 1/9/2013. (dmr) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

Output:
On March 22, 2006, two individuals that had been arrested on minor offenses filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging the Sheriff's blanket policy of strip-searching all detainees upon their arrival at the Gloucester County Jail, regardless of the offense charged, and regardless of whether the detainee was suspected of possessing contraband.  The plaintiffs, who had been strip searched pursuant to this policy, alleged that that the policy violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  To remedy the constitutional violations, Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and class certification.

The Gloucester County Sheriff answered Plaintiffs' complaint by generally denying the allegations.

At the time of this summary, the case was still pending.