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

Filing 603

ORDER re: accountability. Defendants may file amendments or additions to designations of persons responsible for particular tasks on or before 05/02/11. Defendants shall submit by 05/02/11 a description of the line of authority above the Chief of P olice. The parties and Intervenor OPOA shall have until 05/16/11 to file documents regarding whether the Court's prior orders form a sufficient legal basis to enter sanctions, including contempt, against individual employees. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/13/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., 7 8 9 10 MASTER CASE FILE NO. C00-4599 TEH Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ACCOUNTABILITY v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. 11 12 Pursuant to the Court’s August 31, 2010 order, Defendants designated Assistant Chief 13 Howard Jordan, Deputy Chief Eric Breshears, and Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel as persons 14 responsible for particular tasks in the Memorandum of Understanding. The Court entered an 15 order so naming these individuals on September 15, 2010. 16 The Court understands that at least one of these individuals has taken on a different 17 role within the Department and now offers Defendants an opportunity to amend their 18 designations of senior command staff responsible for particular tasks. Defendants may also, 19 but are not required to, name other command-level personnel who will be jointly responsible 20 for implementing specific tasks. Defendants shall file any amendments or additions to their 21 designations of responsible persons on or before May 2, 2011. No filing is required if 22 Defendants do not request any changes. 23 Additionally, as part of the joint statement submitted prior to the last status 24 conference, Mayor Jean Quan submitted a letter indicating her commitment to reforming the 25 Department. So that the record is clear as to accountability, Defendants shall submit, by 26 May 2, 2011, a description of the line of authority above the Chief of Police. For example, 27 Defendants must identify to whom the Chief reports. If he does not report directly to the 28 Mayor, then Defendants shall identify all intermediate supervisors. 1 1 Finally, as the Court has explained repeatedly, including at the most recent status 2 conference, all employees of the Department, and not just the Department’s senior command 3 staff and their superiors within the City, are subject to Court sanctions if they interfere with 4 or undermine implementation of this Court’s orders. The Court shares the hope that such 5 sanctions, including possible contempt proceedings, will not become necessary. However, as 6 the Court has indicated, it stands prepared to take all necessary action to ensure that the 7 reforms it ordered – and to which the parties agreed – are finally implemented. It is well 8 beyond time to move past good intentions and into good practices. 9 If Plaintiffs, Defendants, or Intervenor Oakland Police Officers’ Association 10 (“OPOA”) believe that this Court’s prior orders do not provide a sufficient legal basis to 11 enter sanctions, including contempt findings, against the individuals discussed above, they 12 shall file a brief explaining the deficiencies and proposing language to correct such 13 deficiencies. Similarly, if Defendants or Intervenor OPOA believe that not all individuals are 14 aware of their court-ordered obligation not to interfere with or undermine the reforms at issue 15 in this case, then they shall notify the Court of how and when they will ensure that all 16 individuals are aware of such obligations. Any submissions pursuant to this paragraph shall 17 be filed on or before May 16, 2011. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: 04/13/11 22 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?