Case: Allen v. City of Oakland

3:00-cv-04599 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 17, 2000

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 17, 2000, a citizen filed this §1983 class action lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a group of rogue police officers within the OPD known as "the Riders" violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by kidnapping, beating, and planting drugs on the plaintiff.On March 26, 2001, District Judge Charles A. Legge ordered that several other civil rights cases pending against the OPD …

On December 17, 2000, a citizen filed this §1983 class action lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a group of rogue police officers within the OPD known as "the Riders" violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by kidnapping, beating, and planting drugs on the plaintiff.

On March 26, 2001, District Judge Charles A. Legge ordered that several other civil rights cases pending against the OPD be consolidated with this case under the consolidated case number C00-4599 TEH (JL). These cases were sometimes referred to as the "Riders" cases and involved approximately 119 plaintiffs represented by private counsel and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Following consolidation, the plaintiffs' complaint was amended three times.

The case was eventually transferred to District Judge Thelton E. Henderson. The parties engaged in protracted settlement negotiations and participated in numerous court ordered settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge James Larson. A settlement was reached in early 2003, after about eighteen months of negotiations.

On March 14, 2003, Judge Henderson approved the settlement agreement and dismissal of the claims by the plaintiffs/putative class members. The settlement called for payment of $10.9 million to plaintiffs and the implementation of numerous reforms to OPD polices and procedures over a five year monitoring period. Reforms were to be made in the following core areas:

  1. Internal Affairs Investigations

  2. Discipline

  3. Field Supervision

  4. Management Oversight

  5. Use of Force Reporting

  6. Personnel Information Management System (PIMS)

  7. Training

  8. Auditing and Review Systems

On March 24, 2003, the District Court granted a motion for limited intervention by the Oakland Police Officers' Association.

On August 20, 2003, the District Court appointed Rachel Burgess, Kelli Evans, Charles Gruber, and Christy Lopez to serve as the Independent Monitoring Team [IMT] to oversee the reform implementation process.

Meanwhile, in other proceedings, state criminal charges were brought against four OPD officers for alleged crimes stemming from the Riders scandal. After a nine month criminal trial, three OPD officers were acquitted of most charges, with the jury deadlocked on other charges. The alleged ringleader of the Riders fled to escape prosecution.

On June 26, 2008, the parties stipulated that the court's jurisdiction could be extended until April 21, 2010. The settlement agreement expired by its own terms on January 22, 2010. On January 27, 2010, the court issued an order that resulted from a Memorandum of Understanding. The order incorporated the terms of the 2003 Settlement Agreement between the parties, and allowed monitoring to continue until January 2012. An additional independent monitoring team was also appointed to issue quarterly reports regarding OPD's compliance.

On June 23, 2011, the parties entered into an Amended Memorandum of Understanding (AMOU), extending the terms of the agreement until January 22, 2014, with a proviso requiring narrowing and continuation of the AMOU if compliance had not been achieved by January 2014.

On September 15, 2011, in a Joint Status Conference, the parties acknowledged that progress toward achieving the 'Tasks' for compliance had grounded to a halt. The Independent Monitor attributed the lack of progress to a failure of the City of Oakland to take the litigation seriously. Similarly, on January 19, 2012, in a Joint Status Conference, compliance was 'not in sight' and had 'stagnated.' The Independent Monitor's Eighth Quarterly Report (under the 2011 AMOU) reported that little progress had been made in the two years since his appointment. The plaintiffs requested a briefing schedule for a motion to put the Oakland Police Department into receivership.

On January 24, 2012, as an alternative to considering receivership, the court conferred additional authority on the Monitor, requiring the chief of police to consult with the Monitor on all major decisions that would impact the Settlement Agreement. The Monitor was instructed to report to the Mayor and City Administrators any time the Chief took actions against his advice. If the City did not reverse the Chief of Police's decision, then the court would hold a hearing to determine if the Monitor's recommendation should be implemented.

On February 22, 2012, the Court formally announced its consideration of the possibility of Receivership and scheduled briefing. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for December 13, 2012.

In the meantime, the Independent Monitor filed a Ninth Quarterly Report on April 30, 2012, noting several particular problems with the conduct of OPD police officers during the Occupy Oakland protests. The Monitoring team was concerned about outsourcing police misconduct investigations because it indicated that the breadth of complaints was beyond internal affairs' capacity, demonstrated a lack of confidence in unbiased investigation by internal affairs, and jeopardized compliance under sections of the original Negotiated Settlement Agreement.

The parties finished briefing the receivership issue. As described by Judge Henderson in an order on the matter, "Nearly ten years after the parties agreed to a consent decree that was to have been completed in five years but that remains incomplete, the Court was scheduled to hear Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a receiver. After reviewing Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, it became clear that Defendants did not dispute many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs' conclusion that Defendants would be unable to achieve compliance without further intervention by this Court. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on how this case should proceed and, following the parties' request, referred this case to a magistrate judge for settlement." The settlement discussions concluded December 5, 2012, with an agreement for additional oversight by a Compliance Director, appointed by and answerable to the Court, who would have "directive authority" over OPD, relevant to the existing consent decrees. The monitor was to stay in place, as well. While not quite a receivership, the Compliance Director was assigned very extensive authority, including to direct individual expenditures of up to $250,000, and to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police, Assistant Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs (subject to appeal to the Court).

The Court approved this settlement on December 12, 2012.

In March 2013—pursuant to its December 12, 2012 order—the Court appointed a Compliance Director. The Director first issued a Remedial Action Plan that May, addressing in particular (1) supervisors' failure to intervene in or report unacceptable behavior, (2) the lack of impartiality in investigations of officer misconduct, (3) executive leadership's inaction repudiating the previous two deficiencies, as well as (4) its neglect in proactively addressing them. At May's end, the Director issued a Benchmark Plan, thoroughly detailing the priorities, goals, and timeframe for compliance. Finally, he issued six monthly progress reports from July through December 2013. In the last report, he identified "[n]otable progress across a broad range of complex issues and projects continues at an acceptable pace."

In February 2014, the court entered an order consolidating the roles of Compliance Director and Monitor, terminating the existing appointment and giving compliance authority to the position, described as "broad, essentially receiver-like powers in areas related to the negotiated reforms, including procurement authority for individual expenditures not exceeding $250,000 and the power to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police." The Court explained that the bifurcation of the two roles had proven "unnecessarily duplicative," and "less efficient and more expensive than the Court contemplated." The existing monitor took on the new role.

Between April 2014 and June 2015, the Monitor noted significant improvement in OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement. Over this period, the Monitor found that OPD was in full compliance with a majority of the tasks outlined in the agreement. He closely monitored several areas of partial compliance, such as reporting misconduct; vehicle stops, field investigations, and detentions; and responding to allegations of retaliation against witnesses. Although there were reasons to have "cautious optimism," including an influx of new officers, a decrease in complaints, a reduction in the use of force, and a new set of personnel in OPD leadership roles, there was still much to be done to institutionalize these reforms. He feared that OPD was more focused on achieving technical compliance with the settlement agreement instead of achieving sustainable reform.

On May 21, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order modifying the monitoring plan. The court called for monthly monitoring reports, instead of quarterly. Additionally, the Court held that any tasks with which OPD has been in substantial compliance for one year would no longer be subject to monitoring. The areas that remained under active monitoring after this order were: (1) complaint procedures for the Internal Affairs Division; (2) span of control for supervisors; (3) Force Review Board; (4) Executive Force Review Board; (5) vehicle stops, field investigation, and detentions; (5) use of PAS; and (6) consistency of discipline policy. Between July 2015 and February 2018, Mr. Warshaw filed monthly status reports monitoring OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement and the institutionalization of reform.

On December 11, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order requiring that the City must implement a revised policy with respect to the review of uses of force. Under the policy, the review boards must assess whether the use of deadly force may have been avoided and identify tactics, strategies, and opportunities that may have avoided the use of force.

In September 2016, twelve OPD officers were disciplined and four were criminally prosecuted for sexual and professional misconduct involving a minor. A court-appointed investigator issued a report on the incident on June 21, 2017. The investigator found that OPD's initial investigation was wholly inadequate and that OPD's investigatory process was deficient. Additionally, OPD failed to give the victim appropriate attention and care because she was young, engaged in sex work, struggled with mental health issues, and used drugs. The report found that the Monitor, Mayor, and City Administrator did not learn of the sexual misconduct allegations until March 2016 and criticized the Mayor and City Administrator for not doing enough to examine OPD's failure to adequately investigate the allegations. The report also included several recommendations, including training and procedural improvements for notifying the DA's Office of misconduct allegations.

Following the investigator's June 2017 report, the City issued a statement whereby it agreed to improve its investigation procedures. Specifically, the City agreed to provide a more robust review of officer misconduct allegations, provide better and higher-level oversight of criminal investigations, and improve hiring practices to better screen officers at every step including recruitment, hiring, and training.

On August 14, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick. The court issued several joint status conference statements, in which it documented continued compliance efforts with respect to the settlement agreement, as well as OPD's action plan for assessing allegations of OPD criminal conduct. Additionally, Mr. Warshaw was still preparing monthly status reports tracking OPD's compliance with the agreement.

On November 16, 2018, the court issued a joint status conference statement noting that several new problems had arisen, calling into question whether OPD had actually made as much compliance progress as appeared to be the case earlier in the year. Specifically, use of force statistics had been erratic, the number of complaints had risen, problems with the hiring process had been discovered, and the comparative discipline study that OPD had been planning to implement had been stalled. The statement also identified three areas in which OPD had not yet achieved compliance with the settlement agreement: (1) stop data; (2) complaint procedures; and (3) consistency of discipline.

On April 2, 2019, while monitoring was ongoing, the Coalition for Police Accountability filed a motion to intervene and a request for judicial notice. The City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Officers Association filed motions in opposition. The court denied this motion in a minute entry without a formal order on May 29, 2020. The Coalition for Police Accountability appealed this denial to the Ninth Circuit on June 27, 2019 (19-16332). On September 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued their decision, holdind that District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that motion to intervene was untimely. 825 Fed. Appx. 450.

Back in the district court, this case, including the monitoring of the settlement, is ongoing as of April 4, 2021.

Summary Authors

David Postel (2/10/2014)

Eva Richardson (11/21/2018)

Alex Moody (5/21/2020)

Related Cases

Local 10 ILWU v. City of Oakland, Northern District of California (2003)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4496116/parties/allen-v-city-of-oakland/


Judge(s)

Bataillon, Joseph F. (Nebraska)

Christen, Morgan (Alaska)

Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Orrick, William Horsley III (California)

Owens, John Byron (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burris, John L. (California)

Chanin, James B. (California)

Houk, Julie (California)

Kumin, Matthew W. (California)

Judge(s)

Bataillon, Joseph F. (Nebraska)

Christen, Morgan (Alaska)

Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Orrick, William Horsley III (California)

Owens, John Byron (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burris, John L. (California)

Chanin, James B. (California)

Houk, Julie (California)

Kumin, Matthew W. (California)

Scott, John Houston (California)

Stern, Harry S (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bee, Maria (California)

Bliss, Kimberly (California)

Cassidy, Terence J (California)

Chao, Katharine (California)

Colwell, Kimberly E. (California)

Fierro, Rocio V. (California)

Fishman, Edward Marc (California)

Fox, Gregory Mellon (California)

Gruwell, Paul B. (California)

Hall, Randolph (California)

Huneke, Nancy A. (California)

Hynes, Tricia L. (California)

Jefferson, Jamilah A. (California)

Johnson, Kerri A. (California)

Kee, Christopher (California)

Leed, Claudia (California)

Lucia, Rockne (California)

Martin, Brigid S (California)

McCrimmon, Deborah E. (California)

McGee, Otis Jr. (California)

Mello, Paul Brian (California)

Parker, Barbara J (California)

Pereda, David Alejandro (California)

Rapoport, William R. (California)

Roccanova, Gina Marie (California)

Rowell, Stephen Q. (California)

Russo, John A. (California)

Schneider, Walter R. (California)

Simoncini, Kenneth D. (California)

Verber, John Jeffrey (California)

Wilkinson, Alison Berry (California)

Wilson, Edwin Joshua Jr. (California)

Wolff, Samantha D. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Hoffman, Peter A. (California)

Huang, Yolanda (California)

Huang [inactive], Yolanda (California)

Lederman, Rachel (California)

Price, Pamela (California)

Rains, Michael Logan (California)

Swanson, Edward W. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Evans, Kelli M. (California)

Frazier, Thomas C. (California)

Hamoy-Perera, Aimee G. (California)

Warshaw, Robert S. (New Hampshire)

Yank, Ronald (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:01-cv-00080

Docket

Higgs v. City of Oakland

March 14, 2003

March 14, 2003

Docket

3:00-cv-04599

Docket [PACER]

March 25, 2021

March 25, 2021

Docket

A Message from Chief Richard L. Word

No Court

June 3, 2003

June 3, 2003

Press Release

3:00-cv-04599

Settlement Agreement Re: Pattern And Practice Claims

Feb. 4, 2004

Feb. 4, 2004

Settlement Agreement
618

3:00-cv-04599

Amended Memorandum of Understanding RE: Post NSA Terms and Conditions . . .

June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Other
633

3:00-cv-04599

Joint Status Conference RE: Non-Monetary Settlement Issues.

Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Settlement Agreement
674

3:00-cv-04599

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Jan. 19, 2012

Jan. 19, 2012

Pleading / Motion / Brief
675

3:00-cv-04599

Order Vacating January 26, 2012 Status Conference and Conferring Additional Authority On the Monitor

Allen v. Oakland County, CA

Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

Order/Opinion
674

3:00-cv-04599

Joint Status Conference RE: Non-Monetary Settlement Issues

Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

Settlement Agreement
676

3:00-cv-04599

Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Officer Hargraves and Lieutenant Wong

Allen v. Oakland County, CA

Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4496116/allen-v-city-of-oakland/

Last updated Sept. 1, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT Fee status pd entered on 12/7/00 in the amount of $ 150.00 ( Receipt No. 4402752); jury demand [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (tnS, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/25/2013: # 1 Complaint) (tnS, ). (Entered: 12/11/2000)

1 Complaint

View on RECAP

Dec. 7, 2000

Dec. 7, 2000

PACER
2

ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Multi-Option) by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman : counsels' case management statement to be filed by 4/16/01 ; initial case management conference will be held 4:00 4/23/01 . (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)

Dec. 7, 2000

Dec. 7, 2000

PACER
3

EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman by Plaintiffs for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)

Dec. 7, 2000

Dec. 7, 2000

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF)

Dec. 7, 2000

Dec. 7, 2000

PACER
4

NOTICE by Plaintiff of related case(s) C-00-4073 BZ [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)

Dec. 7, 2000

Dec. 7, 2000

PACER
5

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant City of Oakland on 12/8/00 by serving agent, Bobbie Webb. [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)

Dec. 11, 2000

Dec. 11, 2000

PACER
6

DECLINATION to proceed before magistrate by defendant City of Oakland, defendant Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/15/2000)

Dec. 15, 2000

Dec. 15, 2000

PACER
7

CLERK'S NOTICE of impending reassignment to a United States District Judge, The Case Management Conference set for 4/23/01 at 4:00 pm will NOT be held [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2000)

Dec. 18, 2000

Dec. 18, 2000

PACER
8

ORDER by Executive Committee Case reassigned to Judge Charles A. Legge referred to Judge Charles A. Legge the motion for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3-1] ( Date Entered: 12/26/00) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/26/2000)

Dec. 22, 2000

Dec. 22, 2000

PACER
9

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Charles A. Legge by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word to dismiss [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
10

MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word in support of their motion to dismiss [9-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
11

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word re motion to dismiss [9-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
12

MOTION before Judge Charles A. Legge by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word to deny class certification [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
13

MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word in support of their motion to deny class certification [12-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
14

EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Charles A. Legge by Plaintiff for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiffs' ex-parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
15

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Charles A. Legge by Plaintiffs for leave to commence discovery, and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
16

DECLARATION of plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of their motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
17

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [16-1], order received [0-0], motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], motion for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2], order received [0-0], motion for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
20

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Sgt. Hayter on 1/3/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Jan. 5, 2001

Jan. 5, 2001

PACER
18

NOTICE by Plaintiffs of association of attorney Matthew Kumin [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

Jan. 9, 2001

Jan. 9, 2001

PACER
19

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [16-1], order received [0-0], motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], motion for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2], order received [0-0], motion for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

Jan. 9, 2001

Jan. 9, 2001

PACER
21

CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement is due 1/12/01; Initial Case Management Conference set for 2:00 p.m. on 1/17/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Jan. 10, 2001

Jan. 10, 2001

PACER
22

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 16, 2001

Jan. 16, 2001

PACER
23

MINUTES: (C/R Not Reported) ( Hearing Date: 1/17/01) Case management conference -- Held ; the possibility of two other related cases was brought to the court's attention: C-00-4073-CRB & C-01-0080-WHO [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

Jan. 17, 2001

Jan. 17, 2001

PACER
24

AMENDED NOTICE by Plaintiffs of related case(s) C-00-4073-CRB & C-01-0080-WHO [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2001)

Jan. 19, 2001

Jan. 19, 2001

PACER
25

OBJECTIONS by defendant City of Oakland to related case notice [24-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2001)

Jan. 26, 2001

Jan. 26, 2001

PACER
26

Plaintiffs' position re related cases [24-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

Jan. 29, 2001

Jan. 29, 2001

PACER
28

ANSWER to plaintiffs' complaint [1-1], and CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Matthew Hornung against defendants [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
29

SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge Further Case Management Conference set for 11:00 a.m. on 5/18/01 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
27

ANSWER to complaint [1-1] AND CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Clarence Mabanag against defendant City of Oakland [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 16, 2001

Feb. 16, 2001

PACER
30

ANSWER to plaintiffs' complaint [1-1] and CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Jude Siapno against defendants [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

Feb. 16, 2001

Feb. 16, 2001

PACER
31

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Plaintiffs [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER
32

NOTICE by Plaintiffs of related case(s) C-01-0727-VRW [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

Feb. 21, 2001

Feb. 21, 2001

PACER
33

NOTICE OF JOINDER by Defendant/Cross-claimant Matthew Hornung to defendant City of Oakland's objection to related case notice [32-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

Feb. 21, 2001

Feb. 21, 2001

PACER
34

NOTICE OF JOINDER by defendant Clarence Mabanag to defendant City of Oakland's objection to notice of related cases [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

Feb. 21, 2001

Feb. 21, 2001

PACER
35

NOTICE OF JOINDER by defendant Jude Siapno in defendant City of Oakland's objection to notice of related cases [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2001)

Feb. 22, 2001

Feb. 22, 2001

PACER
36

MINUTES: (C/R Not Reported) (Hearing Date: 2/26/01) referring case for settlement conference to Magistrate Judge James Larson [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2001)

Feb. 27, 2001

Feb. 27, 2001

PACER
37

NOTICE AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge James Larson: Settlement conference set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/8/01 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2001)

Feb. 27, 2001

Feb. 27, 2001

PACER
39

NOTICE by defendants City of Oakland & Oakland Police Chief Joseph Samuels of association of attorneys Gregory M. Fox, Kimberly E. Colwell & Nancy A. Huneke [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 2, 2001

March 2, 2001

PACER
38

SUPPLEMENTAL PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Clarence Mabanag of join/joinder [34-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 6, 2001

March 6, 2001

PACER
40

AMENDED NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS by defendants [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/14/2001)

March 9, 2001

March 9, 2001

PACER
41

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge that defendants & cross-defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word's time within which to answer any and all cross-claims in the case is extended until 3/26/01 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/16/2001)

March 13, 2001

March 13, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: documents produced and made available for duplication by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)

March 14, 2001

March 14, 2001

PACER
42

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge re documents produced and made available for duplication by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

March 15, 2001

March 15, 2001

PACER
43

NOITCE AND ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge of substitution of associated counsel: withdrawing attorney Matthew Kumin for plaintiffs and substituting attorney John Houston Scott (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 26, 2001

March 26, 2001

PACER
44

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge: consolidating cases 3:00-cv-4599 with member cases 3:00-cv-4073 & 3:01-cv-80 for all pretrial purposes including discovery, motions and settlement (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 26, 2001

March 26, 2001

PACER
46

CROSSCLAIM by defendant & cross-claimant City of Oakland in 3:00-cv-04599 against defendants Francisco Vazquez, Clarence Mabanag, Jude Siapno & Matthew Hornung [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
47

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [30-2] by Defendant/ Cross-defendant City of Oakland [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
48

ANSWER by defendants City of Oakland and S. Hewison to complaint of Rodney Mack originally filed 11/3/00 as C-00-4073-CAL [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
49

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [27-2] by Defendants & Cross-defendants City of Oakland and Oakland Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
50

ANSWER by defendants City of Oakland & Oakland Police Chief Richard Word to complaint of Delphine Allen, et al. originally filed as C-00-4599-CAL [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
51

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [30-2] by Defendants/ Cross-defendants City of Oakland and Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
52

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [28-2] by Defendants / Cross-defendants City of Oakland and Oakland Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
53

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [27-2] by Defendants/ Cross-defendants City of Oakland & Oakland Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
54

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM of Clarence Mabanag originally filed on 2/16/01 to C-01-0080-CAL submitted by Defendants & Cross-defendant City of Oakland and Oakland Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
55

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM of Jude Siapno originally filed to C-01-0080-CAL submitted by Defendant/Cross-defendant City of Oakland [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
56

ANSWER by defendants City of Oakland, Oakland Police Chief Richard Word and S. Hewison to complaint of Michael Higgs, et al. filed in C-01-0080-CAL [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
57

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM of Matthew Hornung originally filed in C-01-0080-CAL submitted by Defendants & Cross-defendant City of Oakland and Oakland Police Chief Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

PACER
45

EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Charles A. Legge by Plaintiffs in 3:00-cv-04599 for an order granting plaintiffs leave to serve defendant Francisco Vazquez via publications of summons [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

March 28, 2001

March 28, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED [Proposed] Order Plaintiffs' ex-parte application for an order granting plaintiffs leave to serve defendant Francisco Vazquez via publications of summons [45-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)

March 28, 2001

March 28, 2001

PACER
58

ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge granting plaintiffs' ex-parte application for an order granting plaintiffs leave to serve defendant Francisco Vazquez via publications of summons [45-1] (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/05/2001)

March 28, 2001

March 28, 2001

PACER
59

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs in 3:00-cv-04599 of order [58-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2001)

April 5, 2001

April 5, 2001

PACER
60

NOTICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of related case(s) C-01-1252-TEH [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2001)

April 5, 2001

April 5, 2001

PACER
61

LETTER from John L. Burris, Esq. dated 4/3/01 to Clerk regarding rescheduling of case management conference to 5/25/01 at 11:00 a.m. [3:00-cv-04599, 3:00-cv-04073, 3:01-cv-00080] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

April 5, 2001

April 5, 2001

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) Case Management Statement is due 5/18/01, and Case Management Conference re-set for 11:00 a.m. on 5/25/01 [3:00-cv-04599, 3:00-cv-04073, 3:01-cv-00080] (tn, COURT STAFF)

April 5, 2001

April 5, 2001

PACER
62

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [46-1] by Defendand/ Cross-defendant Matthew Hornung in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

April 18, 2001

April 18, 2001

PACER
63

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [46-1] by Defendant/ Cross-defendant Jude Siapno in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER
64

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [46-1] by Defendant/ Cross-defendant Jude Siapno in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER
65

NOTICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of related case(s) C-00-4817-VRW [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

April 20, 2001

April 20, 2001

PACER
66

NOTICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of related case(s) C-01-1458-CW [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

PACER
67

REPLY by Plaintiffs to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' notice of related case [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

May 4, 2001

May 4, 2001

PACER
68

ANSWER/REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM [46-1] by Defendant/ Cross-defendant Clarence Mabanag in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

May 7, 2001

May 7, 2001

PACER
69

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES: Before Mag. Judge Larson (C/R Not Reported) (Hearing Date: 5/8/01) Settlement conference -- held, case did not settle, and matter continued for further conference on 7/12/01 at 10:00 a.m. [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

May 8, 2001

May 8, 2001

PACER
70

LETTER from John L. Burris, Esq., dated 5/23/01 to Clerk regarding vacation of case management conference scheduled for 5/25/01 at 11:00 a.m. pending reassignment of the case [3:00-cv-04599, 3:00-cv-04073, 3:01-cv-00080, 3:01-cv-00727] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/2001)

May 24, 2001

May 24, 2001

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) vacating case management conference scheduled for 5/25/01 [3:00-cv-04599, 3:00-cv-04073, 3:01-cv-00080, 3:01-cv-00727] (tn, COURT STAFF)

May 24, 2001

May 24, 2001

PACER
71

ORDER, by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong, DENYING related case notice. Case IS NOT related to C00-1558 SBA. ( Date Entered: June 6, 2001) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599, 3:00-cv-04073, 3:01-cv-00080, 3:01-cv-00727] (rl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/06/2001)

June 6, 2001

June 6, 2001

PACER
72

ORDER by Executive Committee Case reassigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2], referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1], referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion to deny class certification [12-1], referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion to dismiss [9-1], referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3-1] ( Date Entered: 6/13/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2001)

June 11, 2001

June 11, 2001

PACER
73

CLERK'S NOTICE Status conference set for 1:30 7/30/01 ; [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/2001)

June 19, 2001

June 19, 2001

PACER
74

FURTHER NOTICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of related case(s) C01-1458 CW; C01-2317 MMC; C00-4817 VRW; C01-1906 MMC; C01-1753 TEH [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/26/2001)

June 19, 2001

June 19, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599) stipulation granting plaintiffs leave to file amended complaints in case numbers C00-4599, C01-0080, C01-0727, C00-4073 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

June 29, 2001

June 29, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED first amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

June 29, 2001

June 29, 2001

PACER
75

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : granting plaintiffs leave to file amended complaint (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/12/2001)

July 11, 2001

July 11, 2001

PACER
86

AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599; jury demand [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/2001)

July 11, 2001

July 11, 2001

PACER
76

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of Proof of Publication (for related 4 related cases) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/20/2001)

July 17, 2001

July 17, 2001

PACER
77

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson relating cases C01-1753 TEH; C01-1458 CW and C01-2317 MMC ( Date Entered: 7/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/20/2001)

July 18, 2001

July 18, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599) stipulation re related cases [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

July 19, 2001

July 19, 2001

PACER
78

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 (dft Richard Word) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

July 20, 2001

July 20, 2001

PACER
79

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 (dft C. Yanke) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

July 20, 2001

July 20, 2001

PACER
80

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Richard Word in 3:00-cv-04599 on 7/12/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

July 20, 2001

July 20, 2001

PACER
81

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant City of Oakland in 3:00-cv-04599 on 7/12/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

July 20, 2001

July 20, 2001

PACER
82

LETTER dated 7/25/01 from Gregory M. Fox in 3:00-cv-04599 and all related cases moving the 7/30/01 Status Conference to 11/5/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to letter [82-1] Status conference set for 1:30 11/5/01 ; [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

PACER
83

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Hayter in 3:00-cv-04599 on 7/26/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/2001)

July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

PACER
84

ANSWER to plaintiff's first amended complaint AND CROSSCLAIM for defense and indemnity; jury demand by defendant Clarence Mabanag in 3:00-cv-04599 [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/2001)

July 31, 2001

July 31, 2001

PACER
85

ANSWER by defendant Jude Siapno in 3:00-cv-04599 to first amended complaint [1-1] and cross-claim; jury demand [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2001)

Aug. 13, 2001

Aug. 13, 2001

PACER
87

NOTICE by Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599 of related case(s) C01-3148 JCS [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

Sept. 5, 2001

Sept. 5, 2001

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff in 3:00-cv-04599) stipulation re related case notice (C01-3148 JCS) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

Sept. 13, 2001

Sept. 13, 2001

PACER
88

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson relating cases C01-3148 JCS; ( Date Entered: 9/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/20/2001)

Sept. 18, 2001

Sept. 18, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 17, 2000

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All individuals who suffered deprivation of their constitutional rights by members of the OPD.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Oakland Police Department (Oakland, California), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 50,000

Order Duration: 2003 - None

Content of Injunction:

Auditing

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Receivership

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Training

Issues

General:

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Pattern or Practice

Racial profiling

Record-keeping