Case: Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Janet Reno

1:01-cv-00090 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Jan. 18, 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 18, 2001, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police ('FOP"), a national organization with a membership of more than 275,000 police officers, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that 42 U.S.C. § 14141 as interpreted and enforced by the Department of Justice was unconstitutional. The FOP's complaint also sought to permanently enjoin the DOJ from undertaking enforcement actions purs…

On January 18, 2001, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police ('FOP"), a national organization with a membership of more than 275,000 police officers, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that 42 U.S.C. § 14141 as interpreted and enforced by the Department of Justice was unconstitutional. The FOP's complaint also sought to permanently enjoin the DOJ from undertaking enforcement actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141. The FOP averred that the DOJ currently was investigating police departments in Buffalo, New York; Charleston, West Virginia; Eastpointe, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Orange County, Florida; Prince George's County, Maryland; Riverside California; and Washington, DC. And that it had reached consent decrees with departments in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Steubenville, Ohio. The FOP alleged that these consent decrees infringed upon the collective bargaining rights of its members with their governmental employers and affected the legal rights of police officers who did not voluntarily agree to the terms of the consent decrees.

The Attorney General responded by filing a motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The FOP filed a motion to permit discovery prior to ruling on the government's motion.

On August 14, 2001 district court judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied the FOP's motion to allow discovery, denied the FOP's denying motion to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss. Judge Urbina found that possible future injury to FOP members by way of the DOJ reaching additional consent decrees with other police departments was not imminent, and thus the FOP lacked standing to bring the action.

The FOP filed a notice of appeal on October 11, 2001, but the appeal was dismissed for a reason that does not appear in the record on November 20, 2001.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (12/28/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Urbina, Ricardo M. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Henderson, C. David (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Urbina, Ricardo M. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Henderson, C. David (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:01-cv-00090

Docket (PACER)

Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft

Nov. 21, 2001

Nov. 21, 2001

Docket
1

1:01-cv-00090

Complaint for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief

Jan. 18, 2001

Jan. 18, 2001

Complaint
12

1:01-cv-00090

Memorandum Opinion

Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft

185 F.Supp.2d 9

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 10, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP (bm) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 18, 2001

Jan. 18, 2001

SUMMONS (2) issued to federal party(s) federal defendants JANET RENO, and USA (U.S. and U.S. Attorney General). (bm) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 18, 2001

Jan. 18, 2001

2

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed upon U.S. Attorney General on 1/31/01 (td) (Entered: 02/15/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

3

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of summons and complaint executed upon U.S. Attorney on 1/26/01 (td) (Entered: 02/15/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

4

MOTION filed by federal defendant USA to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; exhibits (7) (aet) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 30, 2001

March 30, 2001

5

RESPONSE by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [4-1] by USA .; exhibits (5) (aet) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

April 10, 2001

April 10, 2001

6

MOTION (UNOPPOSED) filed by federal defendant USA to extend time to 4/24/01 to file its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss (aet) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 18, 2001

April 18, 2001

7

ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion to extend time to 4/24/01 to file its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss [6-1] by USA; U.S. reply to brief in further support of its motion to dismiss due by 4/24/01 (N) (jwd) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

8

REPLY by federal defendant USA, federal defendant JOHN ASHCROFT in support of motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [4-1] by USA; exhibits (1) (aet) (Entered: 04/25/2001)

April 24, 2001

April 24, 2001

9

MOTION filed by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP to allow discovery , and to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing (cdw) (Entered: 05/04/2001)

May 1, 2001

May 1, 2001

10

RESPONSE by federal defendant USA to motion to allow discovery [9- 1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP, motion to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing [9-2] by GRAND LODGE/FOP (aet) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

May 14, 2001

May 14, 2001

11

REPLY by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP in support of motion to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing [9-2] by GRAND LODGE/FOP (aet) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

May 21, 2001

May 21, 2001

12

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (N) (jwd) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

13

ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : denying motion to allow discovery [9-1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP, denying motion to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing [9-2] by GRAND LODGE/FOP, granting motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [4-1] by USA (N) (jwd) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

14

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP from order [13-1] , entered on: 8/14/01. $105.00 fee paid; copy mailed to parties. (td) (Entered: 10/16/2001)

Oct. 11, 2001

Oct. 11, 2001

USCA # 01-5368 assigned for appeal [14-1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP (tb) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

Oct. 16, 2001

Oct. 16, 2001

USDC appeal fee of $5.00 received, for appeal [14-1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP , by plaintiff GRAND LODGE/FOP . USCA notified. (td) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Oct. 23, 2001

Oct. 23, 2001

TRANSMITTED supplemental record on appeal [14-1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP USCA No.: 01-5368. (td) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Oct. 30, 2001

Oct. 30, 2001

USCA # 01-5368 assigned for appeal [14-1] by GRAND LODGE/FOP (td) (Entered: 11/01/2001)

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

15

CERTIFIED COPY of order filed in USCA dated 11/20/01, on appeal [14-1] , dismissing appeal . USCA # 01-5368 (bcs) (Entered: 11/21/2001)

Nov. 21, 2001

Nov. 21, 2001

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 18, 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Fraternal organization that represented interests of law-enforcement officers alleging that the law that provides the US a remedy against systemic police misconduct is unconstitutional and seeking to stop the undertaking of certain enforcement actions

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Attorney General, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Racial profiling