United States v. City Of Los Angeles

Facts

P alleged that Ds engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving individuals of constitutional rights through the use of excessive force, false arrests, and improper searches and seizures in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Before filing this suit, Ps discussed the issues with Ds. The parties agreed to enter into a consent decree. On the same day that P filed the complaint the parties filed a 'Joint Application to Enter Consent Decree' and lodged a proposed consent decree with the district court. The Police League) responded by filing an action seeking to enjoin implementation of the consent decree and a declaration that 42 U.S.C. § 14141 is unconstitutional, and (2) filing a motion for leave to intervene in the instant action. The Police League is the designated bargaining unit for the 'rank and file' LAPD officers - the approximately 8,600 officers who do not hold ranks higher than lieutenant. The Police League and the City presently operate pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which governs the terms and conditions under which members of the Police League are employed by the City. The Police League claims that the consent decree is incompatible with the MOU. The district court denied the motion to intervene as a matter of right and its motion for permissive intervention. Community groups also requested leave to intervene both as of right and permissively. They stated that they have suffered from, and are likely to continue to suffer from, the unconstitutional police misconduct. The Community Interveners desire to intervene to help ensure that the reform sought is successful and to be able to participate in that reform process. The Community Interveners filed a complaint in intervention, asserting claims as plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ds. The district court denied all the requests for intervention. Ts appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.