Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

MASTER CASE FILE

NO. C00-4599 TEH 

ORDER APPROVING

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL TO

CLOSE 756 COMPLAINTS OF

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

AND RELATED CASES

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ proposal, filed on October 4, 2006, to resolve

the issue of 756 uninvestigated complaints of alleged misconduct by investigating 192

complaints and closing the remaining 564 complaints. Upon consultation with the

Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”), the Court finds good cause to approve Defendants’

proposal, which Plaintiffs do not oppose. The deadline for imposing discipline pursuant to

Government Code section 3304 has already expired on the remaining 564 complaints, and

the Court agrees that the lengthy passage of time makes it unlikely that any further

investigations would be productive for the reasons discussed in Defendants’ proposal. 

Moreover, Defendants agree that information regarding the uninvestigated complaints will be

made available whenever state or federal law would allow discovery of such complaints, and

that data on any complaints made in the last thirty months shall be entered into the Personnel

Assessment System. Thus, the data regarding these complaints will not be lost or destroyed

even though no formal investigation will occur. Additionally, Defendants have recently

made good progress in improving the operations of the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”),

and Defendants finally “recognize[] the urgency of rectifying [their] failures” in IAD,

including improving both the timeliness and quality of investigations. Defs.’ Proposal at 5.

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 324 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 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

2

However, as Defendants themselves acknowledge, much work in IAD remains to be

done, and the IMT will therefore continue to monitor carefully the policies and procedures in

IAD, as well as the timeliness and quality of the division’s investigations. In addition,

although the Court is in this instance approving the closure of a significant number of

complaints without investigation, it does not intend to do so in the future. Defendants have

now revised their policies and procedures so that complaints should no longer languish in

IAD or, worse yet, never even be formally considered a complaint potentially in need of

investigation. Future violations of these policies and procedures, which were approved by

the IMT under the terms of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement in this case, may be

punishable by contempt of court and, in any event, shall not result in the sort of one-time

amnesty that the Court now allows by approving Defendants’ request to close 564 complaints

without further investigation.

In addition, data on all complaints made within the last thirty months of the date of

this order shall be entered into the Internal Personnel Assessment System (“i-PAS”) no later

than March 31, 2007, and into the Personnel Assessment System (“PAS”) no later than three

months after the final implementation of PAS. Defendants shall file a proposed order

naming a person responsible for these tasks on or before October 30, 2006. As with the

deadlines set in the Court’s order regarding i-PAS, if, for any reason, Defendants believe that

these deadlines are unattainable, then they shall immediately meet and confer with Plaintiffs

and the IMT. If a stipulation between the parties, approved by the IMT, cannot be reached,

then the parties shall call this Court’s courtroom deputy to propose dates and times for a

telephonic status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/11/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 324 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2