(As to all Defendants)   13.  Plaintiff brings two actions pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and Rule  23(c)(4)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and a class of similarly  situated individuals admitted to the custody of the Allegheny County Jail during the proposed class  period.   14.  Class Definition—Class I:  the first Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is  defined as follows:  All detainees in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail who were held in housing  units where correctional officers of the opposite sex were assigned to posts within  open view of unclothed detainees, including, but not limited to: when detainees  were using the restroom, showering, or changing clothes. The class period  commences on December 18, 2018 and extends to the date on which Allegheny  County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice, and  custom of assigning correctional officers to posts within open view of unclothed  detainees of the opposite sex. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants  and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors,  employees, or assignees.    16.  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 of maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).   17.  The members of the Classes are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable.  Upon information and belief, there are thousands of citizens who are held in custody at the  Allegheny County Jail every month—most, if not all, of whom are members of the Proposed Class.  Upon information and belief, the size of each of the Proposed Classes totals at least tens of  thousands of individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.    18.  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 the  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and  belief, many members of the Classes are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely  would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.    20.  Plaintiff Bianca Morris’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Classes. Plaintiff Bianca Morris and all members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of  Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by Plaintiff Bianca Morris are typical of the  harms suffered by the members of the Classes.   21.  The representative Plaintiff, Ms. Morris, has the requisite personal interest in the  outcome of the action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff  Bianca Morris has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.   22.  Plaintiff Bianca Morris has retained counsel with substantial experience in the  prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation, including successful litigation of civil rights  cases. Plaintiff’s counsel has the resources, expertise, and experience to successfully prosecute this  action against Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among the members of  the Classes or between counsel and members of the Classes.   23.  This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff  seeks Class Certifications under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all Members of the Proposed Class  were subjected to the same policies and actions of the Defendants. In short, Defendants acted on  the grounds generally applicable to all members of the Class.   25.  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 include: (1) whether Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of assigning correctional  officers of the opposite sex to posts where they continually view detainees in the nude is  unconstitutional, and whether such written and/or de facto policies existed during the Class period,  and (2) whether Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of assigning correctional officers of  the opposite sex to posts where they view detainees in the nude while detainees are being strip  searched is unconstitutional, and whether such written and/or de facto policies existed during the  Class period.    26.  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 members of the Class and the fact they are dispersed over  a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expenses 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 also would 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 Classes.    28.  In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks  partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).  29.  In the Allegheny County Jail, detainees are housed in six separate pods or cell  blocks.    30.  The pods within the Allegheny County Jail are typically single-gender.    31.  Within the pods are large areas for detainees to congregate during the day, often  referred as dayrooms.   32.  On the perimeter of the dayrooms are rows of cells for the detainees to be housed.   33.  Each cell typically houses two detainees. Within each cell is a toilet and sink. The  toilet is freestanding with no barrier for privacy.   34.  The door to the cell is solid metal with a window into the cell.   35.  During times that detainees must be confined to their cells, correctional officers  must make rounds to ensure that the detainees are in their cells.    36.  Routinely, correctional officers of the opposite sex are assigned to posts where they  are required to look into each cell to take count.   37.  Accordingly, correctional officers of the opposite sex often observe detainees in  states of undress in their cells while the detainees are using the restroom or changing clothes.    39.  The Defendants do not have a policy of announcing when a correctional officer of  the opposite sex is approaching the detainees’ cell, thus preventing the detainees to cover up their  genitals and/or breasts.   40.  The Plaintiff acknowledges that taking count of detainees when they are in their  cells is important and necessary. It is unnecessary, however, for detainees, such as the Plaintiff and  members of the proposed classes, to have their genitals and/or breasts exposed to correctional  officers of the opposite sex while the detainees are using the restroom, changing their clothes,  and/or showering. This policy, pattern and/or custom of the Defendants is unconstitutional and  unnecessary.    41.  Upon information and belief, Defendants instituted a written and/or de facto policy,  custom, or practice of posting correctional officers of the opposite sex to posts where they viewed  detainees in the nude. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not have a policy, custom, or  practice of ordering the correctional officers of the opposite sex from announcing themselves  before they approached the detainees in states of nudity.    42.  Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, as addressed above, are both  offensive and absurd considering the important privacy interests that detainees hold as it relates to  their naked bodies.    44.  As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to correctional officers of the  opposite gender pursuant to these written and/or de facto policies, the victims of the unlawful  practices—each member of the Classes, including Plaintiff—has suffered or will suffer  psychological pain, humiliation, and mental anguish.  Fact Applicable to the Class Allegation II   45.  Oftentimes, in the Allegheny County Jail, detainees are strip searched to check for  contraband.   46.  During strip searches, the detainees remove all of their clothing and correctional  officers check under the detainees’ feet and armpits, between their buttocks, and around their  genitals. Men are required to lift their testicles, and women are required to lift their breasts.   47.  Due to the extremely intrusive nature of strip searches, strip searches should be held  in a secluded area and conducted by a correctional officer of the same gender as the detainee.   48.  However, the Allegheny County Jail routinely conducts strip searches of detainees  in an open area with correctional officers of the opposite sex nearby and observing the detainees  in the nude as their bodies, including their cavities, are being examined.   49.  The Defendants do not have a policy that requires correctional officers of the same  sex as the detainees to be assigned to posts where strip searches are being conducted within  visibility.   50.  The Defendants do not have a policy that prohibits strip searches from being  conducted in open areas where correctional officers of the opposite sex may inadvertently be in.    52.  The Plaintiff acknowledges that conducting strip searches to check for contraband  is important and necessary. It is unnecessary, however, for detainees, such as the Plaintiff and  members of the proposed classes, to be strip searched in the presence of correctional officers of  the opposite sex.    53.  Upon information and belief, Defendants instituted a written and/or de facto policy,  custom, or practice of posting correctional officers of the opposite sex to posts where they viewed  detainees being strip searched. Upon information and belief, Defendants had a policy, custom, or  practice of permitting strip searches in open areas where correctional officers of the opposite sex  may inadvertently be.    54.  Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, as addressed above, are both  offensive and absurd considering the important privacy interests that detainees hold as it relates to  their naked bodies.    55.  Pursuant to these written and/or de facto policies, each member of the Classes,  including Plaintiff, were exposed to correctional officers of the opposite sex while in stages of  undress. Conducting strip searches in this way is unreasonable, as there is no justification for  detainees to have their nude bodies exposed to correctional officers of the opposite sex.    56.  As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to correctional officers of the  opposite gender pursuant to these written and/or de facto policies, the victims of the unlawful  practices—each member of the Classes, including Plaintiff—has suffered or will suffer  psychological pain, humiliation, and mental anguish.  Facts Specific to Plaintiff Bianca Morris   58.  All of Ms. Morris’ charges were later dismissed.    59.  Over the four months when Ms. Morris was held at the Allegheny County Jail, Ms.  Morris was strip searched numerous times.    60.  Often times when Ms. Morris was strip searched, she was not in a secluded area.  Further, while Ms. Morris was always strip searched by a female correctional officer, male  correctional officers were often mere feet away, observing the strip search being conducted and  saw her naked body being examined.    61.  Additionally, while being housed in her all female pod, Ms. Morris was observed  by male correctional officers while she was using the toilet.   62.  Specifically, Ms. Morris was housed in a pod with other female detainees.    63.  Male correctional officers were posted within the all-female pod.   64.  When Ms. Morris and other detainees were required to be locked in their cells, male  correctional officers were assigned to look through the women’s cell windows to take count.    65.  As it follows, Ms. Morris genitals, buttocks, and breasts were viewed by  correctional officers while she was in her cell utilizing the toilet and changing clothes.   66.  The male correctional officers assigned to take count of the female detainees and  look into the females’ cells did not alert the women that they were approaching; therefore, the  women could not cover up their naked bodies before the male correctional officers looked into  their cells.   68.  Defendants’ conduct of monitoring pretrial detainees of the opposite sex while  using the toilet and being strip searched constitutes an unreasonable search of pretrial detainees in  violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, Defendants’ conduct constitutes an  invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy.    69.  As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip searches conducted pursuant  to a written and/or de facto policy, Plaintiff has suffered psychological pain, humiliation, and  mental anguish.   70.  The averments of the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully  set forth herein.    71.  Section 1983 provides that: “every person who, under color of [law] of any State. .  . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [person] to the deprivation of any rights. . . secured by  the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. . .” 42 U.S.C. §  1983.    72.  Actions against state officials seeking redress for violations of constitutional rights  may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.    73.  Pretrial detainees, including Plaintiff, are “persons” within the meaning of 42  85.  The averments of the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully  set forth herein.    86.  Section 1983 provides that: “every person who, under color of [law] of any State. .  . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [person] to the deprivation of any rights. . . secured by  the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. . .” 42 U.S.C. §  1983.    87.  Actions against state officials seeking redress for violations of constitutional rights  may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.    88.  Pretrial detainees, including Plaintiff, are “persons” within the meaning of 42  Fact Applicable to the Class Allegation I   HARPER individually and in his official capacity  as Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, DAVID  ZETWO, individually and in his official capacity  as Chief Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County  Jail, and SIMON WAINWRIGHT, individually  and as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail,  Defendants.  PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983  (As to all Defendants)  