Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Mot. for SanctionsDelphine Allen v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C00-4599 TEH 1
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888Law Offices of John L. BurrisAirport Corporate Centre7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120Oakland, California 94621Telephone: 510.839.5200Facsimile: 510.839.3882JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968Law Offices of James B. Chanin3050 Shattuck AvenueBerkeley, California 94705Telephone: 510.848.4752, Ex. 2Facsimile: 510.848.5819Attorneys for PlaintiffsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONDELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Defendants.))))))))))))))Case No.: C00-4599 TEH
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORSANCTIONS AGAINST CITY OFOAKLAND POLICE OFFICER, J.HARGRAVES AND/OR CITY OFOAKLAND POLICE LIEUTENANT, C.WONGHearing Date: January 9, 2012Time: 10:00 a.m.Courtroom: No. 2, 17
th
FloorThe Honorable Thelton E. Henderson
Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Mot. for SanctionsDelphine Allen v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C00-4599 TEH 2
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
On January 9, 2012, the Court heard Plaintiffs’ motion for the imposition of sanctionsagainst City of Oakland Police Officer, J. Hargraves, and Oakland Police Lieutenant, C. Wong.Having considered the Plaintiffs’ moving papers, any opposition by the Defendants and/or theaforesaid officers, argument of counsel and for good cause shown,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED for the followingreasons:
I. SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS
On January 22, 2003, the parties stipulated to a non-monetary settlement agreement(NSA), which was entered as an Order of this Court. (Chanin decl., Ex. 1, NSA). The NSArequired the City of Oakland to enact and enforce institutional reforms within the City of Oakland Police Department to prevent a continuing course of civil rights violations by itsofficers and to require that supervisors and command staff be held accountable for their failure toprevent recurring misconduct by their subordinates.(Chanin decl., Ex. 1, NSA).Some of the most significant reforms mandated under the Court Ordered NSA involvedthe reporting of misconduct by members of the Oakland Police Department by fellow officersand supervisors; the identification of witnesses to acts of misconduct by members of the OaklandPolice Department; and mandates that supervisory members of the Oakland Police Departmenttake appropriate action in the wake of acts of misconduct by their subordinates. (Chanin decl.,Ex. 1, NSA at Sections V-VI).In particular, Section VI(A) of the NSA, mandates that OPD personnel report misconductby any other member or employee of the Department to their supervisor and/or IAD and thattheir failure to do so would subject them to corrective action and/or discipline for any failure toreport misconduct.
Id
. Section V(E) of the NSA also mandates that members of the OPD are
Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Mot. for SanctionsDelphine Allen v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C00-4599 TEH 3
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
required to report acts by OPD officers involving criminal misconduct. Section VI(C), alsorequires officers to identify both civilian and police witnesses to incidents involving the use of force in Use of Force reports.
Id
.In the eight years that have passed since the parties entered into the Court Ordered Non-monetary Settlement Agreement (NSA), two separate independent monitoring teams haverepeatedly found that the City of Oakland has failed to substantially comply with manyprovisions of the NSA, despite being given repeated extensions of time for the City come intosubstantial compliance with the Agreement. (Chanin decl.).Plaintiffs contend that one of the main reasons why the City of Oakland has been unableto substantially comply with reforms mandated by the NSA is due to the fact that certainmembers of the Oakland Police Department are not committed to making sure that the Cityreaches substantial compliance with the NSA and, worse, are actively engaged in acts and/oromissions which interfere with and/or undermine the Court Ordered reforms under the NSA andwith the efficient and orderly final disposition of this litigation. (Chanin decl.).Due to the continuing failure of the City of Oakland to meet its obligations under theNSA, the Court entered an “Order Re: Accountability” on April 13, 2011 which made it clearthat this Court would hold individual members of the City of Oakland Police Departmentresponsible for their acts and/or omissions which undermined and/or interfered with this Court’sOrders, in addition to specific supervisors who were identified as having responsibility forcertain tasks under the NSA. (Chanin decl., Ex. 2, April 13, 2011, “Order Re: Accountability”).This Order states, in pertinent part:“Finally, as the Court has explained repeatedly, including at the most recent statusconference,
all employees of the Department, and not just the Department’s senior command staff and their superiors within the City, are subject to Court sanctions if they interfere with or undermine implementation of this Court’s orders
. The Court
of 00
Motion for Sanctions Against OPD Ofc J. Hargreaves and Lt. C Wong
215 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 11/16/2011 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment