Case: State of California v. City of Bakersfield

BCV-21-101928 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Aug. 23, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In December 2016, the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") initiated a civil investigation to determine whether the Bakersfield Police Department (“BPD”) had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state or federal law. The DOJ concluded that BPD did not uniformly and adequately enforce the law by: Engaging in unreasonable force and stops, searches, arrests, and seizures; Failing to exercise appropriate management and supervision; Using unreasonable deadly force against individuals wi…

In December 2016, the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") initiated a civil investigation to determine whether the Bakersfield Police Department (“BPD”) had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state or federal law. The DOJ concluded that BPD did not uniformly and adequately enforce the law by:

Engaging in unreasonable force and stops, searches, arrests, and seizures; 
Failing to exercise appropriate management and supervision; 
Using unreasonable deadly force against individuals with mental health disability and experiencing a mental health crisis;  
Failing to provide meaningful access to services to individuals with limited English proficiency; 
Failing to provide equal employment opportunities;
Failing to adequately maintain a meaningful program to address civilian complaints;
And lacking a comprehensive community policing program. 
On August 23, 2021, the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") entered a stipulation judgment with the City of Bakersfield and BPD in a California state court.  The settlement was designed to improve BPD's policies and practices, such as requiring body-worn cameras, volunteering to collect data early under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, implementing a community collaboration initiative, and more. The agreement also established a monitoring program. It was set to last five years, although the parties could jointly petition to terminate the judgment after three years. 

The monitor submitted the first annual report on December 30, 2022, covering the period of January 1 to October 31, 2022. The monitor reported that BPD had not achieved the objectives of the work plan (which the monitor designed), but had made a good-faith effort. The first year had focused on use of force practices.

The second annual report was submitted on January 19, 2024 and covered January 1 to December 1, 2023. The monitor reported progress on the policies for use of force, language access, and search and seizure but inconsistent engagement with the community engagement panel, among other results.

On April 4, 2025, the third annual report was filed. The monitor reported progress by BPD in achieving reform, including working to amend policies for compliance with the judgment. However, BPD faced challenges with advancing training development and administration required for compliance. Additionally, two judgment paragraphs were awarded full and effective compliance (the appointment of a crisis intervention coordinator and an ordinance allowing for the hiring of a Chief of Police from outside the department).

As of December 2025, monitoring is ongoing. 

 

Summary Authors

Avery Coombe (12/22/2025)

People


Judge(s)

Cervantes, Gina M. (California)

Clark, Thomas S. (California)

Etienne, Linda S. (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

21-cv-101928

Docket

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Docket

21-cv-101928

Complaint

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Complaint

21-cv-101928

Stipulation For Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

Order/Opinion

21-cv-101928

Annual Report - Year One

Dec. 30, 2022

Dec. 30, 2022

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

21-cv-101928

Annual Report - Year Two

Jan. 19, 2024

Jan. 19, 2024

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Resources

Docket

Last updated April 22, 2025, 10:22 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Civil Case Cover Sheet (CM-010) Civil Case Cover Sheet

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Complaint

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Notice of Case Management Conference date: 02/22/22, time: 8:30 am, dept: 12

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Electronic Rejection Notice TO: Attorney, Anthony Seferian RE: Summons REASON: Section, 'Notice to the Person Served' was not left blank (Electronic Rejection Notice- Summons)

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Summons Issued and Filed

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Notice of Settlement Conditional (JBSIS) Notice of Settlement - Conditional

Aug. 23, 2021

Aug. 23, 2021

Judgment (After Conditional Settlement) STIPULATED JUDGMENT

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

Stipulation and Order Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

Notice of Entry of Judgment Notice of Entry of Judgment by Stipulation

Aug. 31, 2021

Aug. 31, 2021

Notice of Motion Motion for Leave to Intervene Hearing Date: 10/21/21 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 12

Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Leave to Intervene

Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Declaration of Peter Bibring in support of Motion for Leave to Intervene

Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Declaration of Josth Stenner in support of Motion for Leave to Intervene

Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Proof of Service re Motion for Leave to Intervene

Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Association of Attorney Association of Michael G. Marderosian

Sept. 29, 2021

Sept. 29, 2021

Opposition Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Declaration Declaration of Virginia Gennaro in Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Declaration Declaration of Maria Fernandez in Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Declaration Declaration of Greg Terry in Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Request for Judicial Notice Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Points and Authorities Plaintiff the People of the State of California's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition by Plaintiff the People of the State of California to Motion for Leave to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Declaration Declaration of Anthony V. Seferian in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Leave to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Declaration Declaration of Debra Kirby in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Leave to Intervene

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Proof of Service Declaration of Service

Oct. 7, 2021

Oct. 7, 2021

Reply in support of Motion to Intervene

Oct. 14, 2021

Oct. 14, 2021

Declaration of Crista Minneci in support of Proposed Intervenors Reply

Oct. 14, 2021

Oct. 14, 2021

Proof of Service re Reply to Motion to Intervene

Oct. 14, 2021

Oct. 14, 2021

Motion for Leave 9/28/21 Non-Party, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; FAITH IN THE VALLEY Motion for Leave to Intervene Hearing Held at 8:30 AM (Motion for Leave 10/21/2021)

Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

Notice - Withdrawal of Attorney Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney of Record

Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

To ensure the public has access to court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, this court will be audio live streaming all non-confidential matters. This alternative method for observing courtroom proceedings is strongly encouraged during this time for all non-parties to avoid attending court in-person where social distancing protocols and limited courtroom access applies. It is also available because Judicial Officers may have to limit, or impose other reasonable restrictions upon, public access to their courtrooms and adjacent hallways based on recommended social distancing requirements. Each judge retains the discretion and authority to refuse, limit or terminate audio live streaming of the proceedings, or portions thereof, pursuant to the factors and prohibitions articulated in California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, and in consideration of other statutory and constitutional provisions. By Court Order and California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, audio live streams may NOT be recorded, broadcasted or rebroadcasted without prior written permission from the Court. Witnesses who have been instructed not to discuss their testimony or court proceedings with others may not listen to the audio streaming of any portion of the trial.

Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

Ruling Hearing Held at 10:00 AM (Ruling 12/28/2021)

Dec. 28, 2021

Dec. 28, 2021

Order Denying Motion for Leave to Intervene

Jan. 20, 2022

Jan. 20, 2022

Case Management Conference

Feb. 22, 2022

Feb. 22, 2022

Stipulated Judgment Amendment to the Stipulated Judgment

June 23, 2022

June 23, 2022

Notice Notice of Filing of the First Annual Report Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment Entered on August 27, 2021

Jan. 13, 2023

Jan. 13, 2023

Financial Information

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 23, 2021

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff is the California Attorney General suing on behalf of the people of California to remedy the Bakersfield Police Department's pattern or practice of illegal conduct.

Plaintiff Type(s):

State Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Bakersfield (Bakersfield, Kern), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Other Dockets:

California state trial court BCV-21-101928

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Findings Letter/Report

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitoring

Monitor/Master

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Provide antidiscrimination training

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Training

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Issues

General/Misc.:

Disciplinary procedures

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Language access/needs

Pattern or Practice

Record-keeping

Search policies

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Mental impairment

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Hiring

Promotion

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Language discrimination

Affected Language(s):

Spanish

Policing:

Excessive force

Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects

Improper use of canines

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Over/Unlawful Detention (policing)