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

Filing 611

Second ORDER re: accountability. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/18/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

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,

SECOND ORDER RE:
ACCOUNTABILITY

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

On April 13, 2011, this Court explained that “all employees of the Department, and

13 not just the Department’s senior command staff and their superiors within the City, are
14 subject to Court sanctions if they interfere with or undermine implementation of this Court’s
15 orders.” April 13, 2011 Order at 2. The Court ordered Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenor
16 Oakland Police Officers’ Association (“OPOA”) to file briefs by May 16, 2011, if they
17 “believe[d] that this Court’s prior orders do not provide a sufficient legal basis to enter
18 sanctions, including contempt findings, against the individuals discussed above” or “that not
19 all individuals are aware of their court-ordered obligation not to interfere with or undermine
20 the reforms at issue in this case.” Id.
21

Neither Plaintiffs nor OPOA submitted a filing, thereby indicating their understanding

22 that this Court has a legal basis for sanctioning Department employees in this case.
23 Defendants filed a timely brief explaining their position that:
24
25
26
27

as of May 2, 2011 all members and employees of the Oakland Police
Department, regardless of rank or assignment, are on notice of their
personal responsibility and potential accountability to the Federal
Court regarding their performance of duties related to compliance
with the Negotiated Settlement Agreement and the Memorandum of
Understanding as well [as] the extension of the Memorandum of
Understanding.

28
1

1 Defs.’ May 16, 2011 Resp. at 3. Thus, all parties and the OPOA now acknowledge that this
2 Court has the legal authority to enter sanctions against any member or employee of the
3 Oakland Police Department who interferes with compliance efforts in this case.
4

Defendants requested clarification as to whether they would be entitled to a hearing

5 prior to imposition of sanctions or a finding of contempt. The answer is yes. If sanctions
6 appear to be warranted, the Court will issue an order to show cause and allow the parties an
7 opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterates its hope that such proceedings will not become
8 necessary, and that Defendants will – during the pending extension of the Memorandum of
9 Understanding – finally complete what they agreed to do more than eight years ago.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 Dated: 05/18/11
14

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2