Filed Date: Dec. 17, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit was the culmination of an 18 month-long investigation of the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. That investigation, which began in June of 2011, was prompted by the high number of PPB officer-involved shootings that involved individuals with mental illness. On September 13, 2012, the DOJ issued a findings letter stating that it found reasonable cause to believe the PPB was engaging in unconstitutional conduct, and that it had identified serious deficiencies in policies, training, and officer accountability measures that substantially contributed to this conduct. That same day, the DOJ and the City of Portland released a joint statement declaring the parties' mutual intent to reach a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve these issues.
On December 17, 2012, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under § 14141 against the City of Portland based on the conduct of the PPB. The complaint alleged that officers of the PPB engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of force against individuals with actual or perceived mental illness in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the complaint alleged that: (1) police encounters with such individuals too frequently resulted in a higher level force than necessary; (2) PPB officers employed tasers more times than necessary on such individuals, or in circumstances where such force was not justified; and (3) PPB officers used a higher degree of force than justified for low level offenses. The matter was assigned to District Judge Michael H. Simon.
On December 17, 2012–the same date the complaint was filed–the parties filed a joint motion to enter a settlement agreement and conditionally dismiss the action. The proposed settlement agreement included detailed provisions addressing PPB policies and practices regarding: (1) use of force; (2) dealing with persons perceived as or actually suffering from mental illness or mental health crises; (3) dealing with persons suffering from addictions and behavioral health challenges; (4) crisis intervention; (5) identifying at-risk employees; (6) officer accountability; (7) training; (8) supervision; (9) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; (10) transparency and oversight; and (11) community engagement.
On December 18, 2012, the Portland Police Association (PPA), the labor union representing PPB employees, filed a motion to intervene. On January 8, 2013, a coalition of organizations seeking reform of Portland police practices also moved to intervene. Both these parties wished to participate in any negotiations of the proposed settlement agreement. On February 19, 2013, Judge Simon granted in part and deferred in part PPA's motion. 2013 WL 12309780. The court also denied in part and deferred in part the coalition's motion, but granted them "enhanced amicus status for remedy purposes." Ultimately, both parties were allowed to participate in the settlement negotiations.
All parties reached a tentative agreement regarding the terms of the proposed settlement in December 2013. The settlement agreement provided for revisions to use of force policies and compliance audits related to use of force; training; community-based mental health services; crisis intervention; an employee information system; officer accountability; and community engagement, including creation of a Community Oversight Advisory Board (COAB).
On August 29, 2014, Judge Simon issued an order entering the settlement agreement and conditionally dismissing the litigation. Judge Simon further ordered the city to direct the Compliance Officer/Community Liaison, a position created under the settlement agreement, to provide copies to the court of all final quarterly reports which are referenced in the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the Court directed the parties to attend annual settlement-compliance hearings.
After the district court's entry of the settlement agreement, the parties had protracted disagreements and negotiations regarding the scope of involvement by the court and the public. On October 27, 2014, the city appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The City appealed based on the court's order, as a condition of its dismissal, that the parties, intervenor-defendant, and amicus curiae appear at hearings whenever called by the court and to produce evidence as requested by the court. The city's position was that the district court could accept one of the settlement processes approved by the parties, which included annual status conferences, but could not order post-dismissal evidentiary hearings unless the federal government alleged a material breach of the settlement agreement. The issues on appeal were whether the court could impose conditions on dismissal without the defendant's consent, whether the district court has jurisdiction to convene post-dismissal proceedings unrelated to enforcement of the settlement agreement, and whether the district court's order changed the terms of the settlement agreement.
The appeal was referred to circuit mediation, and the parties underwent mediation with a Circuit Mediator in February 2015. On July 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the case to the district court for adoption and entry of a proposed amended order entering the settlement agreement. The Ninth Circuit granted the joint motion for remand on July 29, 2015.
Back in the district court, Judge Simon issued an order on July 30, 2015, entering the settlement agreement, conditionally dismissing litigation, and setting the first annual status conference. While the substance of the settlement agreement remained the same, the original order established periodic hearings where the parties would "present evidence," while the amended order referred only to annual status conferences. The Ninth Circuit formally dismissed the appeal on September 21, 2015, pursuant to the parties' joint motion for voluntary dismissal.
The federal government filed its first compliance status assessment report on September 29, 2015, and its second on October 18, 2016. While reporting substantial or partial compliance in many areas of the settlement agreement, the city was in non-compliance regarding its obligations relating to the Community Oversight Advisory Board (COAB). The report found that the COAB's ability to accomplish its work was significantly impaired by multiple foundational problems. The second annual status conference was held on October 25, 2018, a week after the filling of the second status report. At that status conference, the federal government requested interim status conferences for the city to report its progress in developing a revised plan for the COAB and for the parties to propose modifications to the settlement agreement accordingly. The district court granted the request over the city's objection and set an interim status conference.
On December 14, 2016, the city filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit requesting that the Ninth Circuit direct the district court to withdraw its order setting a further status conference (the interim status conference) and to hold no more than one status conference a year. The city argued that, though the parties had decided on a settlement agreement rather than a consent decree, Judge Simon had "taken an escalating series of steps to enlarge the proceedings, to insinuate itself into and take control of the implementation of the settlement agreement." The writ petition claimed that the second annual status conference of October 2016, had departed from the bounds negotiated by the parties. Specifically, the city took issue with the district court having invited all members of the public to speak, thanking people who made disparaging comments about the city, and seemingly inviting the federal government to invoke the settlement agreement's breach provisions. The case was referred to Circuit mediation in March 2017.
During the course of the Ninth Circuit mediation, the parties addressed certain substantive settlement agreement compliance issues and developed proposed amendments to the settlement agreement. On December 26, 2017, the federal government filed its Third Periodic Compliance Assessment Report, which reported that the parties collaborated during 2017 to address barriers to compliance through amending language in the original settlement agreement that proved unworkable. On that same day, the parties filed a joint stipulated motion to enter an amended settlement agreement in the district court and a motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition of the writ of mandamus on January 3, 2018.
The district court held a fairness hearing on the proposed amended settlement agreement on April 19, 2018, in conjunction with the third annual status conference. In a May 15, 2018 order, Judge Simon approved certain proposed amendments to the settlement agreement, including updated provisions on use-of-force reporting, the employee information system, Citizen Review Committee appeals, and the disciplinary process. Judge Simon also conditionally approved proposed amendments regarding community engagement and oversight, pending further evaluation at an interim status conference set for October 4, 2018. These proposed amendments restructured the Community Oversight Advisory Board (COAB) as the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP). The PCCEP would have a smaller group of volunteers than the COAB and would receive more administrative support and training. The PCCEP would solicit information from the community and PPB about PPB's performance, particularly with regard to constitutional policing; contribute to and advise on community engagement; and receive public comments and concerns.
The Portland City Council approved the amendments to the settlement agreement, including the community engagement provisions, on August 24, 2018, and the city began to work toward implementing the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing (PCCEP). On September 27, 2018, the city submitted a memorandum updating the court on the establishment of the PCCEP. The memorandum reported that thirteen members had been confirmed to the PCCEP and that training for the PCCEP was underway, and requested that the court grant final approval to the remaining settlement agreement amendments concerning community engagement and the PCCEP. At an October 4, 2018 interim status conference, Judge Simon deferred final approval of the settlement agreement—including proposed amendment concerning community engagement and the PCCEP—until the next interim status conference, scheduled for June 6, 2019.
On May 4th, 2019, the DOJ issued its Fourth Periodic Compliance Assessment Report, finding that the PPB was in substantial compliance with most of the settlement provisions, although still only in partial compliance with the officer accountability provision and the community engagement provision. The problems with the officer accountability provision mostly stemmed from difficulties in quickly resolving investigations of complaints. Regarding community engagement, the PPB had still not finished fully utilizing the PCCEP.
When the June 6, 2019, interim status conference came around, Judge Simon deferred final approval of the settlement agreement yet again, saying he would revisit the issue at the next status hearing scheduled for February 25, 2020. In advance of the hearing, the DOJ filed an interim compliance assessment report in which it found the city to be in substantial compliance with all sections of the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the settlement may be terminated if the city remains in substantial compliance with all terms for one year.
At the February 25th hearing, the court once again deferred final approval. Judge Simon scheduled the next hearing for February 2021 but later pushed the date to August 2021 to allow for public hearing regarding the police response to ongoing protests and demonstrations in the city following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The demonstrations lasted for months and police occasionally deployed tear gas and other weapons against demonstrators.
The DOJ filed its Fifth Periodic Compliance Assessment Report on February 10, 2021, finding that, largely in response to those 2020 demonstrations, the PBB had failed to maintain substantial compliance with provision in sections of the settlement agreement governing the use of force, training, accountability, and community engagement. Therefore, the standard for termination had not been met.
The DOJ sent a letter of noncompliance to the city on April 2, 2021, after the parties could not informally resolve the compliance concerns. Thereafter, the parties engaged in months of mediation in an attempt to find solutions to the city’s compliance issues. While mediation efforts were ongoing, the parties submitted a joint motion on September 21, 2021, seeking final approval of the 2017 amendments to the settlement agreement, which the court granted two days later.
The parties submitted a joint status report on January 10, 2022, in which they notified the court that the mediation sessions resulted in an agreement to amend the settlement agreement to add new Section XI, which would contain eight new remedies for the city to take to resolve the government’s compliance concerns. The proposed new remedies included establishing a civilian leader for the PPB’s Training Division, providing body-worn cameras for officers, and establishing a new structure for civilian oversight and police accountability. The parties advised the court that if the Portland City Council approved the proposed amendments, they would file a joint motion to formally amend the settlement agreement. On February 9, 2022, the city council unanimously passed an ordinance approving the proposed remedies.
On February 25, 2022, the federal government filed an unopposed motion to amend the second settlement agreement. Judge Simon held a fairness hearing on April 29, 2022, and, after hearing from the parties, intervenor, amici, and members of the public, orally approved the proposed amendments. A written order approving the amendments was entered on February 28, 2023.
The DOJ filed its Sixth Periodic Compliance Assessment Report on June 30, 2022, finding that the city lost even more progress in the year since the fifth report. The report found the city was not in substantial compliance with a number of provisions across six different sections of the settlement agreement but expressed optimism for increased compliance with the implementation of the Section XI remedies.
The DOJ filed its Seventh Periodic Compliance Assessment Report on August 8, 2023, finding that the city had made progress in achieving substantial compliance. Whereas the city was in substantial compliance with 66 percent of the settlement agreement’s provisions at the time of the sixth report, the seventh report found that rate had increased to 74 percent. The DOJ reported that the city made “commendable strides” in the areas of force, training, and community engagement and achieved substantial compliance with half of the new Section XI remedies. Accountability remained a primary concern of the federal government, with the report calling out the fact that “applying policies uniformly and holding people accountable for violating policies is a continuing challenge for the City and PPB.”
The parties filed a joint motion on November 3, 2023, seeking to further amend the settlement agreement to replace the existing compliance monitoring and reporting structure with a new independent, court-appointed monitor. Following a fairness hearing, Judge Simon entered an order granting the motion to amend on November 30, 2023. The amended agreement was entered on January 26, 2024.
Judge Simon entered an order on May 15, 2024, appointing MPS & Associates as the independent monitor. The appointment was effective July 1, 2024, and for a term of two years, which may be extended for additional two-year terms.
The parties filed a joint motion on July 30, 2024, seeking to amend the settlement agreement to transfer some of the obligations related to investigations into police conduct and officer accountability to a new Community Police Oversight Board that would replace the current Independent Police Review and Citizen Review Committee, and which would assume some responsibilities assigned to the PPB’s Internal Affairs Division. On August 29, 2024, Judge Simon approved the amendments, effective January 2, 2025.
The city filed a motion on September 12, 2024, seeking reconsideration of the decision to delay implementation of the amendments to the settlement agreement. Judge Simon denied the motion on October 30, 2024.
The case remains ongoing as of February 2025.
Summary Authors
Greg in den Berken (9/20/2014)
Richard Jolly (11/28/2014)
Sarah McDonald (10/17/2018)
Jack Hibbard (6/17/2020)
Robin Peterson (5/23/2023)
Logan Moore (2/14/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4365879/parties/united-states-v-city-of-portland/
Abernathy, Terri J (Oregon)
Addington, Gregory W. (Oregon)
Alexander, Keith S (Oregon)
Altman, Stephen D (Oregon)
Albies, Jessica Ashlee (Oregon)
Addington, Gregory W. (Oregon)
Attorney, Noticing 2255 (Oregon)
Auchterlonie, Jennifer D (Oregon)
Bartlett, Anastasia D. (Oregon)
Brown, Aimee Woodward (Oregon)
Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)
Butcher, Daniel Everett (Oregon)
Chan, Priscilla To-Yin (Oregon)
Clarke, Ellen Rebecca (Oregon)
Clayton, Lindsay Laurie (Oregon)
Cohen, Richard Edward (Oregon)
Coles-Huff, Doris Denise (Oregon)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Dean, Kerry Krentler (District of Columbia)
Dimock, Christina Nicole (Oregon)
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
Dworkin, Howard Sheldon (Oregon)
Franze-Nakamura, Francis (Oregon)
Geissler, R. Jonas (District of Columbia)
Gore, John M. (District of Columbia)
Groom, Deborah Fennell (Oregon)
Gross, Mark L. (District of Columbia)
Guadagnino, Charles A (Oregon)
Hager, Jared (District of Columbia)
Harrington, Quinn Patrick (Oregon)
Hecker, Elizabeth Parr (Oregon)
Hendry, Melanie Dyani (Oregon)
Horwitz, Matthew Joseph (Oregon)
Howlette, Jordan David (Oregon)
Iannarone, Liberatore Joseph (Oregon)
Jennings, David Reese (Oregon)
Johnson, Kristin Berger (Oregon)
Jones, Michelle A. (District of Columbia)
Kaminski, Gerald Francis (Oregon)
Kern, Charles Douglas (Oregon)
Knight, David W. (District of Columbia)
Krueger, Matthew Dean (Oregon)
Kwaterski, Laura Schulteis (Oregon)
Langworthy, Nancy Fay (Oregon)
Lawrence, Kathleen O'Malley (Oregon)
Leiderman, Joel David (Oregon)
Lesperance, Karen Folster (Oregon)
Littleton, Judson Owen (Oregon)
Lowe, Virginia Cronan (Oregon)
Majeed, Sameena Shina (Oregon)
Maurer, Michael Stuart (Oregon)
McClanahan, Cathryn Dawn (Oregon)
McCormack, Timothy P. (Oregon)
McCulloch, Christine J (Oregon)
Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)
Mosteller, Daniel Paul (Oregon)
Nathanson, John Alexander (Oregon)
Nelson, Anne Elizabeth (Oregon)
O'Brien, Thomas Peter (Oregon)
Office, United States (Oregon)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Phillips, Cristine Irvin (Oregon)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
Sandberg, Justin Michael (Oregon)
Schnieders, Kathleen Kelly (Oregon)
Schwartz, Richard Adam (Oregon)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Taylor-Phillips, LaQuita J (Oregon)
Tribuiani, Rinku Talwar (Oregon)
Wang, Christopher C. (District of Columbia)
Wayne, Seth (District of Columbia)
Wiethe, Donetta Donaldson (Oregon)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4365879/united-states-v-city-of-portland/
Last updated April 8, 2025, 10:40 a.m.
State / Territory: Oregon
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 17, 2012
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States government.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Portland (Portland, Multnomah), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Policing: