The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?
Thank you!
Filed Date: April 28, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division initiated a civil investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on August 19, 2011. The investigation focused on allegations of unconstitutional conduct by deputies at two stations located in the Antelope Valley cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, California. The DOJ proceeded under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 (Section 14141), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI). These laws authorize the United States to file a legal action when it has reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement agency engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. In addition, the investigation was also founded on the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631.
On June 28, 2013, the Civil Rights Division issued a findings letter to the LASD. The letter explained that the DOJ found that LASD's Antelope Valley stations engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Title VI. The DOJ found, as well, that deputies assigned to these stations had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by targeting certain residents who possessed housing vouchers.
Although the County denied the allegation of unconstitutional conduct, simultaneous to the findings letter being made public, the parties entered a "statement of intent" to reach a comprehensive settlement agreement to be negotiated between the County of Los Angeles and the U.S. The statement of intent explained that "[t]he Agreement to be negotiated is intended to ensure that: 1) LASD personnel in the Antelope Valley engage in practices that comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 2) the objectives of LASD's Core Values and Trust-Based Policing program are realized in the Antelope Valley community." The "statement of intent" indicated that the parties intended to reach a final settlement agreement by August 30, 2013.
Settlement negotiations took quite a bit longer. It was not until April 28, 2015, that the Department of Justice filed this lawsuit and its proposed settlement agreement. The case was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California.
Per the complaint, the DOJ brought this action under the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. § 14141) and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act as amended by the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601). The DOJ alleged that the County violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in the conduct described in its June 2013 letter. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the County:
(a) detained individuals without legal authority
(b) engaged in a pattern of unreasonable force in violation of the 14th amendment
(c) stopped and searched African American and Latino residents on impermissible considerations of race and ethnicity in violation of the 14th amendment
(d) violated the Fair Housing Act by targeting African American residents participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
(e) failed to create adequate accountability systems to curb unlawful policing
The DOJ requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
Under the terms of the settlement, filed the same day, within four years the County would:
(a) create procedures to stop the practice of and detect discriminatory stops, searches, and seizures, as well as training on appropriate practices and the terms of the Settlement Agreement
(b) ensure bias-free policing through training and monitoring of its practices across the County
(c) create and implement a housing non-discrimination policy, as well as a mechanism for documenting all incidents involving voucher holders
(d) enhance its data collection, analysis, and reporting methods to better assess its programs and improvement
(e) enhance community engagement through increased transparency and community feedback mechanisms
(f) revise its policies on use of force to encourage alternatives and de-escalation, prohibit certain actions, promote reporting on all incidents of use of force, and provide for supervision, training, and analysis
(g) create and implement policies to ensure accountability through personnel complaint review procedures, analysis of personnel data, and mentorship; and
(h) comply with stipulated monitoring requirements and assessment procedures.
Further, the Settlement required the County to pay $700,000 to those harmed by its violations of the Fair Housing Act and $25,000 in civil penalties. It created two categories of individuals harmed. Individuals within Category 1 could receive between $1000 and $10,000 in damages. Those within Category 2 could receive between $5000 and $20,000.
The Court approved the settlement agreement on May 1, 2015 and a supplemental settlement agreement on July 21, 2015. The supplemental agreement established the terms and schedule for awarding damages to individuals harmed by the County's violation of the Fair Housing Act.
On May 24, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation to amend the settlement order. After searching for individuals who fell within the two categories created by the settlement, they determined that more individuals would qualify under Category 2. The amendment reduced the low end of the range of potential damages awarded to $3000 to ensure that more individuals would receive damages. The court approved the amendment on May 25.
The court retained jurisdiction over the settlement's enforcement, with the case set to close a year after LASD reached full compliance. As of the thirteenth semi-annual report issued by the monitor in December 2021, LASD had continued to make considerable progress toward, but had not yet achieved, full compliance.
Summary Authors
Marcy Blattner (4/5/2015)
Virginia Weeks (1/23/2017)
Amanda Stephens (4/2/2019)
Jack Hibbard (6/9/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7260448/parties/united-states-v-the-county-of-los-angeles/
Mumm, Frederick F. (California)
Walter, John F. (California)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
Coromelas, Acrivi (California)
Friel, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hagler, Tamar (District of Columbia)
Hart, Charles W. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Hayat, Norrinda B. (District of Columbia)
Mumm, Frederick F. (California)
Walter, John F. (California)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
Coromelas, Acrivi (California)
Friel, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hagler, Tamar (District of Columbia)
Hart, Charles W. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Hayat, Norrinda B. (District of Columbia)
Hull, Joanna Berney (California)
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
Ladewski, Kathryn (District of Columbia)
Leung, Michelle (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)
Lynch, Loretta (New York)
Monteleone, Robyn-Marie L (California)
Pagnucco, Carrie (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Weidman, Leon W. (California)
Yonekura, Stephanie (District of Columbia)
Granbo, Roger H. (California)
Saladino, Mark J. (California)
Wickham, Mary C. (California)
Brann, Joseph (California)
Wolf, Angie (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7260448/united-states-v-the-county-of-los-angeles/
Last updated Sept. 7, 2022, 3:07 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 28, 2015
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
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
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Availably 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
Amount Defendant Pays: 725000
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Race:
National Origin/Ethnicity: