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

Filing 692

ORDER re: officer-involved shootings and Occupy Oakland investigations. Defendants shall file plan re: Occupy Oakland investigations by 06/08/12. Monitor shall include discussion of officer-involved shootings and the Frazier report in his next quarterly report. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/31/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

Download PDF
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 RE: OFFICERINVOLVED SHOOTINGS AND OCCUPY OAKLAND INVESTIGATIONS Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 The Monitor has recently raised with the Court questions about how Defendants 12 investigate officer-involved shootings, up through and including the proceedings of the 13 Executive Force Review Board and subsequent deliberations by the Chief of Police and the 14 City officials who supervise him. This is of utmost concern, as uses of force and the manner 15 in which they are investigated are among the most serious issues in this case, and 16 officer-involved shootings, many of which result in death, are the most grave possible uses of 17 force. The Court hereby directs the Monitor to identify any systemic problems that exist in 18 the process by which Defendants evaluate such cases, as well as whether unique problems 19 arose in any individual case, and recommend solutions to those problems. This analysis shall 20 be included in the Monitor’s next quarterly report. If the Monitor believes it is warranted, he 21 shall also investigate, pursuant to the Court’s January 27, 2012 order, whether sanctions are 22 appropriate in any cases of individual misconduct he might uncover. 23 The Monitor’s concerns surrounding officer-involved shootings highlight the 24 uncertainty over whether Defendants will, without further intervention by the Court, ever be 25 able to comply with the reforms to which they agreed over nine years ago. They have been 26 unable to do so to date, despite the assistance of two different monitoring teams which they 27 themselves have selected, and multiple changes in the leadership of both the Department and 28 the City. The Court therefore finds it necessary to enter additional orders as to the Occupy 1 Oakland-related investigations that were the subject of the Court’s May 1, 2012 order. The 2 Court understands that Defendants complied with that order by timely implementing a plan 3 approved by the Monitor. To ensure that the plan is enforceable by the Court, Defendants 4 shall file, by June 8, 2012, their plan for addressing these investigations, along with a 5 proposed order that adopts the plan as an order of the Court. Defendants must identify 6 specific actions that named individuals shall take by certain deadlines or else face contempt 7 or other sanctions from this Court. The Court may also consider monetary sanctions against 8 the City for each day that the deadlines are missed. 9 Of course, the long history of this case demonstrates that Court orders may not be 11 proceedings are necessary and, if so, whether the schedule proposed by the parties should be For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 sufficient to ensure compliance. Thus, the Court continues to consider whether receivership 12 accelerated if progress continues to lag. 13 Finally, the Court understands that, in connection with his approval of the above plan, 14 the Monitor has reviewed the report prepared by the Frazier Group on the Occupy Oakland 15 events of October 25, 2011. The Monitor’s next quarterly report shall address any 16 implications of the Frazier report relevant to this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 05/31/12 21 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 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?