United States of America v. Baltimore Police Department et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Corrected/Amended MOTION to Intervene. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 4/7/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB Document 40 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

BALTIMORE POLICE DEP’T et al.,
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-17-99

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This memorandum and order follows the Court’s entry today of a consent decree in this
case. (ECF No. 39.) Pending before the Court is a motion filed yesterday—after the Public
Fairness Hearing, also held yesterday—by Community Churches for Community Development,
Inc. (“CCCD”), and Ralph Eugene Moore, Jr., who seek to intervene as Plaintiffs in the instant
suit. (ECF No. 31.) No response will be required from the other parties in the case. No hearing
is required. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2017). The motion will be denied.
As stated in the motion, CCCD is a nonprofit Maryland corporation with the objective of
enhancing “quality of life for Baltimore City residents in keeping with the principles of the
beloved community espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” (Mot. Intervene 2.) Moore “is a
64-year old, African-American, lifelong resident of Baltimore City, and is a community leader
and social worker in Baltimore.” (Id.) Movants further state that they and members of the
communities they serve have experienced unconstitutional policing and unlawful and
discriminatory police practices in Baltimore City. (Id.)

Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB Document 40 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 3

Movants assert a right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) as
Plaintiffs in the case.

(Id. 1.)

Alternatively, they request permissive intervention under

Rule 24(b). (Id.) Attached to their motion is Movants’ proposed complaint in intervention, in
which they seek “redress for violations of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ rights under the United States
Constitution and federal civil rights laws.” (Prop. Interv. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 31-2.) Specific
claims for relief are premised upon the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments (id. ¶¶ 65-67);
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (id. ¶¶ 68-72); and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (id. ¶¶ 73-77). Movants’ proposed
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a request that the Court
[o]rder Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to adopt and implement
policies, training, accountability systems, and practices to remedy the
constitutional and statutory violations described [in the proposed complaint], and
to prevent Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees from depriving
persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.
(Id. ¶ 78e.) Near the end of their motion, Movants clarify that they “seek intervention for the
very limited purpose of supporting the approval of the Consent Decree and seeking its
enforcement against the BPD.” (Mot. 7.)
As noted above, the consent decree has been entered. Accordingly, any interest in
intervening to achieve the first purpose articulated by Movants no longer exists. That issue is
moot.
As for Movants’ second claimed purpose, “seeking [the decree’s] enforcement against the
BPD,” their concern is not ripe. The consent decree has been entered, and implicit within the
agreement underlying it is the Government’s promise to enforce it.

Notwithstanding now-

resolved requests for delay, there is no evidence before the Court that the Government would
decline to comply with the decree once entered. Even when the Government expressly opposes
2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB Document 40 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 3

the entry of Court orders (something that never happened in this case) the Government invariably
complies with such orders once entered. Such is the case in a nation of laws. Nothing in this
record remotely suggests that the Government will not diligently enforce the decree now that it
has been entered.
For these reasons, the Court finds no basis for Movants’ intervention either as of right or
by leave of Court. The motion, therefore, IS DENIED—with prejudice as to their request to
intervene to support entry of the decree, and without prejudice as to their request to intervene to
seek enforcement.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

3