Filed Date: Feb. 10, 2010
Closed Date: April 9, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the protection of voting rights of Spanish-speakers in Riverside County, California, who had limited English proficiency. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this action against Riverside County in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 10, 2010. The government alleged violations of Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act because the county had not provided the necessary Spanish language information regarding registration, ballots, or other electoral processes. As such, the government sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge S. James Otero initially presided over the case.
On February 12, 2010, the parties had reached an initial agreement. The agreement requested that the court appoint federal observers to oversee elections in Riverside County through March 31, 2013. The county agreed to provide materials regarding elections in Spanish and to hire bilingual poll workers to meet the requirements of Section 203. The county also agreed to evaluate the Spanish language program after each election to determine whether they were in compliance. The DOJ agreed that if the county met all of their obligations under the Voting Rights Act, they would move to dismiss their complaint by March 31, 2013.
On March 9, 2010, the district court convened a three-judge court pursuant to the parties’ joint application. Judges Richard C. Tallman, Jacqueline Nguyen, and S. James Otero were thus appointed to oversee the case.
In an order on April 30, 2010, the three-judge panel granted the joint motion to appoint federal observers and extended the time for the defendant to respond to the complaint to March 31, 2013. After each election, the DOJ filed the reports generated by the appointed federal observers. On April 8, 2013, the DOJ notified the court that the county had met their obligations under the agreement and filed a notification of voluntary dismissal. The court dismissed the case on April 9, 2013.
Summary Authors
Claire Butler (12/30/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59911113/parties/united-states-v-county-of-riverside/
Cardona, George S (California)
Gregory, Amanda Elizabeth (California)
Jr, T Christian (California)
Marchand, Michele C (California)
Popper, Robert D (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59911113/united-states-v-county-of-riverside/
Last updated April 15, 2026, 5:17 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 10, 2010
Closing Date: April 9, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff is the United States Department of Justice.
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
County
Riverside County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 2:10-cv-01059
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:
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Order Duration: 2010 - 2013
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Language(s):
Voting:
Voting: Physical/Effective Access
Case Summary of United States v. County of Riverside, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43834/ (last updated 12/30/2022).