what-are-the-collateral-attack-options-of-an-unnamed-class-member

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) What are the collateral attack options of an unnamed class member to challenge the classifications and due process violations in a $53 million civil rights class action settlement involving female inmates and the County of Los Angeles regarding unconstitutional body cavity and strip searches? 2) Whether an unnamed class member, after opting out of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action settlement, has standing to 1) seek collateral review by way of appeal of a class action settlement for Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) due process violations; or, 2) intervene for purposes of appeal on the grounds of due process violations. 3) Whether the District Court Monelle liability summary judgment for monetary damages according to a points-based distribution formula with unknown variables for individual class member pay-outs and the inability to challenge the appropriateness of the calculations is sufficient to satisfy the Rule 23 due process requirement of “adequate representation.” In other words, did the absent class members have sufficient information about the damages calculations to make an informed decision about whether to be bound by the judgment, or opt out? 4) Whether the class certifications of 94,000 female inmates pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(c)(4) adequately protected the interests of the absent class members or were additional sub-classes required for a more appropriate manner of ensuring an equitable distribution of the $53 million settlement fund 5) Whether the arbitrary and capricious denial of an IFP motion to appeal the order approving the class action settlement or intervene, amounts to a denial of access to justice and the equal protection of the laws of the United States in violation of the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process. . : 2 f