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

Filing 641

ORDER setting status conference. Status Conference set for 1/26/2012 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Joint status conference statement due by 1/19/2012. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/03/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

6
7
8
9

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

MASTER CASE FILE
NO. C00-4599 TEH
ORDER SETTING STATUS
CONFERENCE

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
At the September 22, 2011 status conference, the Court instructed the parties to meet

12 and confer with the Monitor on a date in early 2012 for the next status conference. The
13 parties and Monitor have proposed January 26, 2012, which is available on the Court’s
14 calendar. Accordingly, the next status conference is set for January 26, 2012, at 10:30 AM,
15 in Courtroom No. 2. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status conference
16 statement on or before January 19, 2012.
17

If Plaintiffs remain dissatisfied with the level of progress made by Defendants in

18 implementing the reforms in the consent decree, then they shall be prepared to discuss at the
19 status conference their proposal for further proceedings, which might include, as appropriate,
20 motions for contempt or a motion to appoint a receiver. In addition, the Court may
21 separately choose to initiate such proceedings via an order to show cause if it believes there
22 is an adequate basis for doing so. While the Court recognizes that the appointment of a
23 receiver would be a drastic measure, and it understands that a new City Administrator has
24 only recently been hired and has expressed her commitment to prioritizing police reforms,
25 receivership nonetheless remains a potential remedy that may be needed to finally achieve
26 the reforms in a reasonable period. In actuality, of course, far more than a reasonable amount
27 of time has already elapsed since Defendants agreed to the reforms in early 2003. This Court
28 has repeatedly given Defendants the benefit of the doubt, but it is increasingly less willing to

1 do so as we approach year nine of what was intended to be no more than a five-year process.
2 Defendants have unquestionably made progress; however, the stagnation in the number of
3 tasks in compliance – and, indeed, backsliding on some tasks – is troubling, as are recent
4 examples of either resistance to the reforms or failure to comprehend their overall purpose of
5 promoting public safety. Although the Court hopes that Defendants are able to turn this tide
6 in the next several months without further judicial intervention, it remains prepared to take
7 appropriate further corrective action if necessary.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: 10/03/11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2