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: March 4, 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 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 attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522684/parties/united-states-v-steubenville/
Forester, Karl Spillman (Kentucky)
King, Norah McCann (Ohio)
Hinnant, William C. Jr. (South Carolina)
Cristallo, Paul J. (Ohio)
Loughry, Michael S. (Ohio)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522684/united-states-v-steubenville/
Last updated July 13, 2026, 5:35 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 28, 1997
Closing Date: March 4, 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
City
Steubenville Police Department
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Ohio 2:97-cv-00966
Southern District of Ohio 2:05-cv-00001
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 06-04635
Southern District of Ohio 01-00322
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 1997 - 2005
Issues
General/Misc.:
Policing:
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Case Summary of U.S. v. City of Steubenville, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/1035/ (last updated 1/4/2006).