Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles
891 F.3d 776
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- In Aug. 2008 LASD conducted planned cell extractions in two high-security units; five inmates (appellees) were severely beaten, tased, and hospitalized.
- Appellees sued 28 LASD employees and Los Angeles County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments) and California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act).
- At trial the jury found 19 officers and the County liable, awarding $740,000 compensatory and $210,000 punitive damages; district court awarded $5.378M in attorney’s fees.
- Key disputed factual issues: severity/timing of force (many victims beaten while handcuffed or unconscious), missing videotapes of extractions, and evidence of a departmental culture condoning excessive force.
- Procedural disputes included (1) whether the district court erred in proceeding to trial while a qualified-immunity interlocutory appeal was pending (Chuman issue), and (2) PLRA exhaustion and qualified immunity for deputies and supervisors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction to try case while immunity interlocutory appeal pending (Chuman) | Rodriguez et al.: district court had jurisdiction to proceed; the interlocutory appeal was frivolous | LASD: trial violated divestiture rule because appellate court had jurisdiction over interlocutory immunity issues | Court: district court failed to certify under Chuman but error was harmless; interlocutory appeal was frivolous and proceeding did not prejudice defendants |
| PLRA exhaustion (fear of retaliation) | Appellees: grievance process was effectively unavailable because they reasonably feared retaliation | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Held: district court did not clearly err; appellees showed actual and objectively reasonable fear of retaliation, excusing exhaustion |
| Qualified immunity for deputies (including taser use) | Plaintiffs: deputies used malicious/sadistic force beyond de minimis; constitutional right was clearly established | Defendants: force was justified by resistance; law on taser use in 2008 was unsettled | Held: sufficient evidence of malicious/sadistic excessive force; qualified immunity denied for deputies (tasers included) because precedent gave fair notice that malicious, pain-inflicting force violates Eighth Amendment |
| Qualified immunity / supervisory liability (sergeants, Lt., Capt.) | Plaintiffs: supervisors directed/observed extractions or maintained culture of impunity, so are individually liable | Defendants: supervisors’ conduct was justified by disturbance; no personal involvement or clear law violation | Held: supervisors are liable—personal direction/observation and failure to intervene or to remedy a culture of excessive force supported culpable action/inaction; qualified immunity denied |
| Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) element of "threat, intimidation or coercion" beyond the constitutional violation | Plaintiffs: excessive-force proof satisfies § 52.1 because coercion inherent in violent, malicious force meets the statute | Defendants: § 52.1 requires coercion beyond the coercion inherent in the underlying constitutional violation | Held: § 52.1 does not require a separate coercion showing beyond the constitutional violation in excessive-force cases; appellees satisfied § 52.1 |
| Monell municipal liability | Plaintiffs: County had a custom/policy of condoning excessive force and failing to investigate/discipline (CCJV report, omissions in reporting) | Defendants: evidence was insufficient to show municipal custom or causation | Held: substantial evidence supported Monell liability—repeated violations, County awareness, and failure to remediate permitted inference of custom of condoning excessive force |
Key Cases Cited
- Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may certify interlocutory appeal as frivolous to avoid divestiture)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limits on interlocutory appeals of denials of summary judgment qualified-immunity rulings)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard: malicious and sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for governmental policies or customs causing constitutional violations)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (excessive force in prison disturbances analyzed under Eighth Amendment; subjective intent relevant)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (standard for qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established rights)
- Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force law in prison disturbance context)