University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Anti Police-Terror Project v. Oakland PN-CA-0043
Docket / Court 3:20-cv-03866 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Policing
Special Collection Police Violence Protests (Spring/Summer 2020)
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Case Summary
This class action lawsuit was filed on June 11, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs were the Anti-Police Terror Project, Community Ready Corps, and several individuals. Defendants were the City of Oakland, the Oakland Police Department (OPD) Police ... read more >
This class action lawsuit was filed on June 11, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs were the Anti-Police Terror Project, Community Ready Corps, and several individuals. Defendants were the City of Oakland, the Oakland Police Department (OPD) Police Chief, an OPD Sergeant, and two OPD officers. The suit followed police actions to quell protests that arose after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and counsel from the National Lawyers Guild, alleged that Oakland police used tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse peaceful protests. Their suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, they claimed that the actions of the OPD in quelling the protests were in violation of their:
  • First Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and free association;
  • Fourth Amendment rights against excessive force and unlawful seizure;
  • Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process.
They also said that the city was liable for failure to select, train, and supervise the police department.

Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order which would prohibit the use of pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets, and non-lethal weapons. They also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit the alleged constitutional violations in the future. They also sought declaratory relief and money damages to be determined at a later date.

On June 12, 2020 the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Through the next week, plaintiffs submitted proposals for temporary restraining orders, and on June 18, 2020 Judge Spero granted the order. It prohibited use of tear gas and chemical irritants, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets except upon decision of an Operations Commander or Incident Commander in the OPD.

After a series of hearings on the matter, on July 29 the court entered a preliminary injunction against the defendants to prohibit the OPD from using "less-lethal" weapons except in very limited settings, mandating that they wear body cameras, and requiring further training. The provisions in the injunction were largely agreed upon by both parties during the hearings.

Jack Hibbard - 07/20/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Freedom of speech/association
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Excessive force
Over/Unlawful Detention
Pepper/OC spray
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of Oakland
Oakland Police Chief
Plaintiff Description Anti-Police Terror Project, Community Ready Corps, several Oakland, CA residents individually
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 06/11/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
3:20-cv-3866 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/03/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Verified Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
PN-CA-0043-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/11/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause [ECF# 34] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/18/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 52] (2020 WL 4346828) (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/29/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 54] (2020 WL 4584185) (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/10/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Beeler, Laurel (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-9000
Spero, Joseph C. (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0002 | PN-CA-0043-0003 | PN-CA-0043-0004 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brunner, Jane (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001
Burch, James Douglas (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001
Johns, Emily Rose Naomi (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Kim, Andrew Chan (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Mehta, Sonya (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-9000
Riley, Walter Phillip (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Siegel, Daniel Mark (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Weills, Anne Butterfield (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-0001 | PN-CA-0043-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Pereda, David Alejandro (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0043-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -