Facts

The San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department was in custody of T.A. at its juvenile facility overnight before her release was ordered by a judge due to a lack of probable cause. T.A.'s father, Rashad Abdullah initiated a civil rights action against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department Chief, Deputy Probation Officer, and Deputy Probation Officer.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants disobeyed the order to release T.A. and kept her in custody for an additional eleven days before she was finally released. Plaintiff also contended that T.A. was confined to a locked cell while still in custody and forced to sleep on a concrete bed with a stuffed mattress. Plaintiff further contended that the conditions T.A. was kept under were uninhabitable as the lights remained on through the night, temperature was low, and her shoes were kept outside the cell. Plaintiff also contended that he was only allowed restricted access to T.A., who was extremely lonely, and could not make physical contact with his daughter. Plaintiff also contended that defendant's conduct amounted to negligence, false imprisonment, and a violation of T.A.'s civil rights under the constitution. Plaintiff also contended that defendants' conduct caused him and T.A. to lose their constitutional rights to familial association. Plaintiffs also contended that the violations they suffered were caused by certain policies and customs of the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended that plaintiff failed to state a claim because defendants acted with probable cause as evinced by the findings of the assigned judge. Defendants also contended that T.A. was detained in good faith without violation of her substantive or procedural due process rights. Defendants also contended that neither plaintiff nor T.A. could claim their familial rights were interfered with because T.A.'s arrest was lawful. Defendants also contended that they were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's claims.

Result

The parties entered a $150,000 settlement agreement.