Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599-153/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH 

ORDER MODIFYING 

MONITORING PLAN 

 

This case began fifteen years ago, with the filing of several lawsuits alleging racial 

bias, excessive force, and other serious constitutional violations by Defendants City of 

Oakland, the Chief of Police of the Oakland Police Department (“OPD”), and several 

individual OPD officers. In January 2003, the parties agreed to the Negotiated Settlement 

Agreement (“NSA”), which included fifty-one tasks that were scheduled to be completed 

by September 1, 2005. Defendants failed to meet that agreed-upon deadline, and the NSA 

was extended three times, first under its own terms and subsequently by the parties’ 

Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and Amended Memorandum of Understanding 

(“AMOU”), which were entered as orders of this Court on November 24, 2009, and 

June 27, 2011, respectively. 

While Defendants made significant progress under these agreements, their inability 

to achieve compliance with several of the NSA’s most critical provisions prompted 

Plaintiffs to file a motion to appoint a receiver in 2012. The Court ordered the parties to 

engage in settlement discussions after Defendants opposed the motion but acknowledged 

the need for further intervention by this Court. Those discussions resulted in the jointly 

proposed appointment of a Compliance Director, an unprecedented position giving 

directive authority over the City’s police force. The parties agreed that the Compliance 

Director would have authority not just over the specific tasks set forth in the NSA, but also 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1058 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

over “policies, procedures, and practices that are related to the objectives of the NSA and 

AMOU, even if such policies, procedures, or practices do not fall squarely within any 

specific NSA task.” Dec. 12, 2012 Order re: Compliance Director at 6. 

The appointment of a Compliance Director did not change the Monitor’s duty to 

evaluate and report on the status of the City’s compliance with the NSA. The Monitor’s 

most recent report – the twenty-first report by the second monitoring team – found the City 

in compliance with all but three of the fifty-one NSA tasks. Despite such progress, 

however, fundamental issues remain. The Court Investigator’s report concerning the 

discipline process provides the most recent and stark example. As the Court has already 

noted, the shortcomings identified by the Investigator severely undermine consistency of 

discipline and accountability, both of which are fundamental principles behind the NSA. 

Similarly, Defendants’ efforts to curb bias-based policing, which gave rise to many of the 

original complaints in this case, continue to be a work in progress. 

It also remains unclear whether the City can sustain the reforms it has achieved thus 

far. Indeed, some of the NSA tasks have only been in compliance for a short time, and 

some have gone in and out of compliance over the past several years. As this Court has 

repeatedly stated, compliance must be sustainable before this case can end. This requires a 

one-year period of demonstrated substantial compliance, as agreed to by the parties in their 

MOU and AMOU, as well as evidence that reforms have become so institutionalized that 

the absence of oversight will not result in a return to practices that fail to protect 

constitutional rights. 

The Court has consulted with the Monitor and Compliance Director about how to 

more effectively help Defendants attain sustainable compliance. With good cause 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Monitor will provide more contemporaneous reporting of actively 

monitored tasks by filing monthly reports on or before the 10th of each month. The first 

such report will be filed on or before July 10, 2015, and will be based on compliance data 

from May 2015. 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1058 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement regarding a one-year substantial 

compliance period, tasks that have been in compliance for at least one consecutive year 

shall no longer be subject to active monitoring. 

(a) The tasks that have not achieved this milestone, and that therefore 

remain actively monitored at this time, are: Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for the Internal 

Affairs Division; in partial compliance); Task 20 (Span of Control for Supervisors; in 

compliance for three quarters); Task 26 (Force Review Board; in compliance for three 

quarters); Task 30 (Executive Force Review Board; in compliance for three quarters); 

Task 34 (Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detentions; in partial compliance); 

Task 41 (Use of PAS; in compliance for two quarters); and Task 45 (Consistency of 

Discipline Policy; in partial compliance). 

(b) Because the change from quarterly to monthly reporting will result in 

no monitoring for January through April 2015, some adjustment to the substantial 

compliance period is required for those tasks that have been found in compliance but not 

for the requisite one year. Tasks 20, 26, and 30 have been in compliance for three quarters 

– i.e., nine months – and need only three additional months of compliance to have been in 

compliance for a one-year period. These three tasks will therefore be removed from active 

monitoring if they are found in compliance for May, June, and July 2015. Similarly, 

Task 41, which has been in compliance for two quarters, or six months, will be removed 

from active monitoring if it is found in compliance for the next six months, namely, May 

through October 2015. 

3. To ensure continued compliance with all aspects of the NSA, the Monitor 

may choose to examine tasks that are no longer being actively monitored. The Monitor 

will consider the input of the parties and the Compliance Director when determining 

which, if any, tasks to monitor under this provision each month, but the final determination 

shall rest with the Monitor. Any task found to be in partial or non-compliance shall be 

returned to active monitoring the following month. 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1058 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. The Monitor will provide increased technical assistance to help Defendants 

achieve sustainable compliance with NSA tasks and address, in a sustainable manner, the 

strategies and benchmark areas included in the Court’s December 12, 2012 Order re: 

Compliance Director and the shortcomings identified in the Court Investigator’s April 16, 

2015 report. The Monitor will also help Defendants institutionalize an internal system of 

monitoring by the Office of Inspector General or other City or Department entity, along 

with internal mechanisms for corrective action. 

5. The duties and responsibilities of the Monitor and Compliance Director 

otherwise remain unchanged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/21/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1058 Filed 05/21/15 Page 4 of 4