Case: U.S. v. City of Steubenville

2:97-cv-00966 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Aug. 28, 1997

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 28, 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the City of Steubenville pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional misconduct by officers of the Steubenville Police Department ["SPD"] including: using excessive force; making false arrests; lodging false charges; and conducting improper searches and seizures. The filing followed a year long DOJ investigation o…

On August 28, 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the City of Steubenville pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional misconduct by officers of the Steubenville Police Department ["SPD"] including: using excessive force; making false arrests; lodging false charges; and conducting improper searches and seizures. The filing followed a year long DOJ investigation of the SDP.

Contemporaneously with the filing of the government's complaint, the parties filed a joint application for the entry of the consent decree. In support of the joint application, the parties submitted the declaration of James J. Fyfe, Ph.D., a nationally recognized expert in police management, who consulted the DOJ during its investigation of SPD. District Judge George C. Smith entered the consent decree on September 3, 1997. The consent decree included the implementation of changes in the use of force, officer training, internal affairs investigations, officer detention and arrest of subjects, and collection and retention of department information and data.

On October 20, 1997, the Fraternal Order of Police of Fort Steuben filed a motion for leave to intervene as a third-party, so that it could challenge the consent decree. Judge Smith denied that motion on July 23, 1998.

In accordance with the consent decree, the parties selected Charles D Reynolds to serve as auditor. The auditor was charged with oversight of the implementation of the provisions of the consent decree and provided quarterly reports to the court.

In 2001, a member of the police department who had not been chosen as the Chief of Police when that position was being filled sued in state court, alleging a violation of Ohio Civil Service law. The city defended the case on the grounds that it followed the procedures specified in the consent decree, and the matter was moved to federal court. On June 15, 2001, Judge Smith found that case (C2-01-322) related to the underlying civil rights case; both were assigned to Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr., for decision. On June 15, 2001, Judge Sargus ordered the cases consolidated, denied the city's dismissal motion, and granted the U.S. permission to intervene as a party in the civil service case. 147 F.Supp.2d 872 (2001). On September 7, 2001, Judge Sargus granted the DOJ and the City's motion for summary judgment in the individual officer's lawsuit. That officer, the Court found, was not entitled to become the Chief against the procedures specified in the decree. 2001 WL 1681105.

Monitoring and reporting by auditor Reynolds continued until early 2005. On March 2, 2005, the parties filed a joint motion for termination of the consent decree and dismissal of the case. Judge Sargus granted that motion and the case was dismissed on March 4, 2005.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (1/4/2006)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522684/parties/united-states-v-steubenville/


Judge(s)

Forester, Karl Spillman (Kentucky)

King, Norah McCann (Ohio)

Marbley, Algenon L. (Ohio)

McKeague, David William (Michigan)

Sargus, Edmund A. Jr. (Ohio)

Smith, George Curtis (Ohio)

Sutton, Jeffrey S. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Hinnant, William C. Jr. (South Carolina)

Masling, Mark S. (District of Columbia)

McLandrich, John T. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Forester, Karl Spillman (Kentucky)

King, Norah McCann (Ohio)

Marbley, Algenon L. (Ohio)

McKeague, David William (Michigan)

Sargus, Edmund A. Jr. (Ohio)

Smith, George Curtis (Ohio)

Sutton, Jeffrey S. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Hinnant, William C. Jr. (South Carolina)

Masling, Mark S. (District of Columbia)

McLandrich, John T. (Ohio)

McNamara, James Donald (Ohio)

Nelson, Mellie H. (District of Columbia)

Olivito, Richard A. (Ohio)

Pinzler, Isabelle Katz (District of Columbia)

Rattan, James Evan (Ohio)

Reno, Janet (District of Columbia)

Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)

Sanders, Deborah (Ohio)

Zealey, Sharon J. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cristallo, Paul J. (Ohio)

Loughry, Michael S. (Ohio)

Repella, Stephen Gary (Ohio)

Scialdone, Frank H. (Ohio)

Stoffers, Henry (Ohio)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Reynolds, Charles D. (Ohio)

Schlanger, Margo (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:97-cv-00966

Docket (PACER)

U.S. v. Steubenville

July 12, 2006

July 12, 2006

Docket

2:97-cv-00966

Re: Investigation of Steubenville Police Department

No Court

May 12, 1997

May 12, 1997

Findings Letter/Report

2:97-cv-00966

Press Release: "Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Steubenville, Ohio Police Department"

No Court

Aug. 26, 1997

Aug. 26, 1997

Press Release

2:97-cv-00966

Declaration of James J. Fyfe, Ph.D.

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
1

2:97-cv-00966

Complaint

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

Complaint

2:97-cv-00966

Memorandum of Law in Support of Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

Pleading / Motion / Brief
2

2:97-cv-00966

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

Pleading / Motion / Brief
3

2:97-cv-00966

Consent Decree

Sept. 3, 1997

Sept. 3, 1997

Order/Opinion
5

2:97-cv-00966

United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Intervention by Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Steuben Lodge No. 1

United States v. City of Steubenville

Nov. 7, 1997

Nov. 7, 1997

Pleading / Motion / Brief
21

2:97-cv-00966

Opinion and Order

July 23, 1998

July 23, 1998

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522684/united-states-v-steubenville/

Last updated Aug. 12, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

PACER
2

Motion for Order to

Aug. 28, 1997

Aug. 28, 1997

PACER
3

Consent Judgment

Sept. 3, 1997

Sept. 3, 1997

PACER
4

MOTION by movant FOP Fort Steuben for leave to file a Motion to Intervene as a Third Party Plaintiff ( no pgs: 11 + exhibits) (mc) (Entered: 10/21/1997)

Oct. 20, 1997

Oct. 20, 1997

PACER
5

Response to Motion

Nov. 7, 1997

Nov. 7, 1997

PACER
6

Response (non motion)

Nov. 13, 1997

Nov. 13, 1997

PACER
7

Order

Nov. 17, 1997

Nov. 17, 1997

PACER
8

Reply to Response to Motion

Dec. 2, 1997

Dec. 2, 1997

PACER
9

Motion for Leave to File

Dec. 8, 1997

Dec. 8, 1997

PACER
10

Order

Dec. 8, 1997

Dec. 8, 1997

PACER
11

Response to Motion

Dec. 9, 1997

Dec. 9, 1997

PACER
12

Status Report

Dec. 10, 1997

Dec. 10, 1997

PACER
13

Amended Document

Dec. 17, 1997

Dec. 17, 1997

PACER
14

Notice (Other)

Jan. 14, 1998

Jan. 14, 1998

PACER
15

Status Report

Feb. 9, 1998

Feb. 9, 1998

PACER
16

Status Report

Feb. 27, 1998

Feb. 27, 1998

PACER
17

Status Report

March 5, 1998

March 5, 1998

PACER
18

Status Report

June 3, 1998

June 3, 1998

PACER
19

Status Report

June 8, 1998

June 8, 1998

PACER
20

Notice of Appearance

June 29, 1998

June 29, 1998

PACER
21

Order

July 23, 1998

July 23, 1998

PACER
22

Status Report

Sept. 15, 1998

Sept. 15, 1998

PACER
23

Status Report

Dec. 14, 1998

Dec. 14, 1998

PACER
24

Status Report

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

PACER
25

Status Report

May 3, 1999

May 3, 1999

PACER
26

Status Report

July 26, 1999

July 26, 1999

PACER
27

Status Report

July 30, 1999

July 30, 1999

PACER
28

Status Report

Oct. 29, 1999

Oct. 29, 1999

PACER
29

Status Report

Feb. 3, 2000

Feb. 3, 2000

PACER
30

Status Report

May 3, 2000

May 3, 2000

PACER
31

Status Report

July 6, 2000

July 6, 2000

PACER
32

Status Report

Aug. 10, 2000

Aug. 10, 2000

PACER
33

Status Report

Nov. 3, 2000

Nov. 3, 2000

PACER
34

Status Report

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
35

Status Report

Feb. 5, 2001

Feb. 5, 2001

PACER
36

Status Report

May 14, 2001

May 14, 2001

PACER
37

Order

June 15, 2001

June 15, 2001

PACER
38

Order

June 22, 2001

June 22, 2001

PACER
39

Motion for Summary Judgment

July 18, 2001

July 18, 2001

PACER
40

Motion for Summary Judgment

July 20, 2001

July 20, 2001

PACER
41

Motion for Summary Judgment

July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

PACER

Remark

July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

PACER
42

Status Report

Aug. 1, 2001

Aug. 1, 2001

PACER
43

Response to Motion

Aug. 9, 2001

Aug. 9, 2001

PACER
44

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2001

Aug. 13, 2001

PACER
45

Order

Sept. 7, 2001

Sept. 7, 2001

PACER
46

Status Report

Nov. 7, 2001

Nov. 7, 2001

PACER
47

Status Report

Feb. 1, 2002

Feb. 1, 2002

PACER
48

Status Report

April 24, 2002

April 24, 2002

PACER
49

Status Report

Aug. 2, 2002

Aug. 2, 2002

PACER

Miscellaneous Document

Nov. 12, 2002

Nov. 12, 2002

PACER
50

Status Report

Dec. 4, 2002

Dec. 4, 2002

PACER
51

Status Report

Jan. 10, 2003

Jan. 10, 2003

PACER

Status Report

Jan. 29, 2003

Jan. 29, 2003

PACER
52

Status Report

Jan. 29, 2003

Jan. 29, 2003

PACER

Status Report

April 25, 2003

April 25, 2003

PACER

Miscellaneous Document

April 25, 2003

April 25, 2003

PACER
53

Status Report

July 3, 2003

July 3, 2003

PACER

Miscellaneous Document

Aug. 4, 2003

Aug. 4, 2003

PACER
54

Status Report

Jan. 20, 2004

Jan. 20, 2004

PACER
55

Status Report

July 16, 2004

July 16, 2004

PACER
56

Notice (Other)

Nov. 5, 2004

Nov. 5, 2004

PACER
57

Notice (Other)

Feb. 22, 2005

Feb. 22, 2005

PACER
58

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Declaration of Charles D. Reynolds

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Auditor's Quarterly Report, complete report is located in the clerk

View on PACER

March 2, 2005

March 2, 2005

PACER
59

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

March 4, 2005

March 4, 2005

PACER

Remark

July 12, 2006

July 12, 2006

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 28, 1997

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

United States Department of Justice

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Steubenville Police Department , City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1997 - 2005

Issues

General:

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Racial profiling