Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 1058

ORDER modifying monitoring plan. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/21/15. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, 6 7 8 9 v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH ORDER MODIFYING MONITORING PLAN Defendants. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 This case began fifteen years ago, with the filing of several lawsuits alleging racial 12 bias, excessive force, and other serious constitutional violations by Defendants City of 13 Oakland, the Chief of Police of the Oakland Police Department (“OPD”), and several 14 individual OPD officers. In January 2003, the parties agreed to the Negotiated Settlement 15 Agreement (“NSA”), which included fifty-one tasks that were scheduled to be completed 16 by September 1, 2005. Defendants failed to meet that agreed-upon deadline, and the NSA 17 was extended three times, first under its own terms and subsequently by the parties’ 18 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and Amended Memorandum of Understanding 19 (“AMOU”), which were entered as orders of this Court on November 24, 2009, and 20 June 27, 2011, respectively. 21 While Defendants made significant progress under these agreements, their inability 22 to achieve compliance with several of the NSA’s most critical provisions prompted 23 Plaintiffs to file a motion to appoint a receiver in 2012. The Court ordered the parties to 24 engage in settlement discussions after Defendants opposed the motion but acknowledged 25 the need for further intervention by this Court. Those discussions resulted in the jointly 26 proposed appointment of a Compliance Director, an unprecedented position giving 27 directive authority over the City’s police force. The parties agreed that the Compliance 28 Director would have authority not just over the specific tasks set forth in the NSA, but also 1 over “policies, procedures, and practices that are related to the objectives of the NSA and 2 AMOU, even if such policies, procedures, or practices do not fall squarely within any 3 specific NSA task.” Dec. 12, 2012 Order re: Compliance Director at 6. 4 The appointment of a Compliance Director did not change the Monitor’s duty to evaluate and report on the status of the City’s compliance with the NSA. The Monitor’s 6 most recent report – the twenty-first report by the second monitoring team – found the City 7 in compliance with all but three of the fifty-one NSA tasks. Despite such progress, 8 however, fundamental issues remain. The Court Investigator’s report concerning the 9 discipline process provides the most recent and stark example. As the Court has already 10 noted, the shortcomings identified by the Investigator severely undermine consistency of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 discipline and accountability, both of which are fundamental principles behind the NSA. 12 Similarly, Defendants’ efforts to curb bias-based policing, which gave rise to many of the 13 original complaints in this case, continue to be a work in progress. 14 It also remains unclear whether the City can sustain the reforms it has achieved thus 15 far. Indeed, some of the NSA tasks have only been in compliance for a short time, and 16 some have gone in and out of compliance over the past several years. As this Court has 17 repeatedly stated, compliance must be sustainable before this case can end. This requires a 18 one-year period of demonstrated substantial compliance, as agreed to by the parties in their 19 MOU and AMOU, as well as evidence that reforms have become so institutionalized that 20 the absence of oversight will not result in a return to practices that fail to protect 21 constitutional rights. 22 The Court has consulted with the Monitor and Compliance Director about how to 23 more effectively help Defendants attain sustainable compliance. With good cause 24 appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The Monitor will provide more contemporaneous reporting of actively 26 monitored tasks by filing monthly reports on or before the 10th of each month. The first 27 such report will be filed on or before July 10, 2015, and will be based on compliance data 28 from May 2015. 2 1 2. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement regarding a one-year substantial 2 compliance period, tasks that have been in compliance for at least one consecutive year 3 shall no longer be subject to active monitoring. (a) 4 The tasks that have not achieved this milestone, and that therefore remain actively monitored at this time, are: Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for the Internal 6 Affairs Division; in partial compliance); Task 20 (Span of Control for Supervisors; in 7 compliance for three quarters); Task 26 (Force Review Board; in compliance for three 8 quarters); Task 30 (Executive Force Review Board; in compliance for three quarters); 9 Task 34 (Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detentions; in partial compliance); 10 Task 41 (Use of PAS; in compliance for two quarters); and Task 45 (Consistency of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 Discipline Policy; in partial compliance). (b) 12 Because the change from quarterly to monthly reporting will result in 13 no monitoring for January through April 2015, some adjustment to the substantial 14 compliance period is required for those tasks that have been found in compliance but not 15 for the requisite one year. Tasks 20, 26, and 30 have been in compliance for three quarters 16 – i.e., nine months – and need only three additional months of compliance to have been in 17 compliance for a one-year period. These three tasks will therefore be removed from active 18 monitoring if they are found in compliance for May, June, and July 2015. Similarly, 19 Task 41, which has been in compliance for two quarters, or six months, will be removed 20 from active monitoring if it is found in compliance for the next six months, namely, May 21 through October 2015. 22 3. To ensure continued compliance with all aspects of the NSA, the Monitor 23 may choose to examine tasks that are no longer being actively monitored. The Monitor 24 will consider the input of the parties and the Compliance Director when determining 25 which, if any, tasks to monitor under this provision each month, but the final determination 26 shall rest with the Monitor. Any task found to be in partial or non-compliance shall be 27 returned to active monitoring the following month. 28 3 1 4. The Monitor will provide increased technical assistance to help Defendants 2 achieve sustainable compliance with NSA tasks and address, in a sustainable manner, the 3 strategies and benchmark areas included in the Court’s December 12, 2012 Order re: 4 Compliance Director and the shortcomings identified in the Court Investigator’s April 16, 5 2015 report. The Monitor will also help Defendants institutionalize an internal system of 6 monitoring by the Office of Inspector General or other City or Department entity, along 7 with internal mechanisms for corrective action. 8 9 5. The duties and responsibilities of the Monitor and Compliance Director otherwise remain unchanged. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: 05/21/15 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?