Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1320

1

2

3

O

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN

) Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx)

GOODWIN, on behalf of

)

12 themselves and of those

)

similarly situated,

)

13

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

Plaintiffs, ) FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND

14

) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

v.

) DISMISS

15

)

LEROY BACA, Sheriff of Los )

16 Angeles County Jails; PAUL )

TANAKA, Undersheriff, Los

)

17 Angeles Sheriff's

)

Department; CECIL RHAMBO,

)

18 Assistant Sheriff, Los

)

Angeles Sheriff's Department ) [Dkt Nos. 20, 36]

19 and DENNIS BURNS, Chief of )

Custody Operations Division, )

20 Los Angeles Sheriff's

)

Department,

)

21

)

Defendants. )

22 ___________________________ )

23

24 I. Introduction

25

Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

26 Certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Having considered the

27 submissions of the parties and heard oral argument, the court

28 grants the motion and adopts the following order. The court notes

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:1321

1 that the threshold for satisfying class certification requirements

2 is relatively low. See Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 258 F.R.D.

3 580, 594 (C.D. Cal. 2008). The granting of this class

4 certification motion is a procedural step allowing this matter to

5 go forward. It is not intended, and does not constitute an opinion

6 on the ultimate merits of the lawsuit.

7

The court has great confidence in the leadership and integrity

8 of both sides to this dispute. The parties have proved to be

9 effective partners in crafting cooperative solutions to issues

10 raised in other, related matters before this court. Nothing in

11 this order shall be read to discourage the parties from continuing

12 to pursue collaborative efforts to address jail-related matters of

13 mutual concern.

14 I. Background

15

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has the

16 responsibility of running the largest and likely most challenging

17 jail system in the country. It is a system which admits and

18 discharges over 150,000 inmates a year and is responsible, among

19 other matters, for delivering inmates to courthouses located

20 throughout the county. The inmate population is comprised of

21 individuals charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanors to

22 homicides, and includes pre-trial detainees, inmates who have been

23 convicted and sentenced, and, under California’s “realignment”

24 program, an increasing number of state prisoners.

25

A substantial portion of the inmate population has serious

26 medical and mental health needs, disability issues, and drug and

27 alcohol dependency problems. While many inmates are non-violent or

28 low-level offenders, a significant number are hard-core gang

2

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:1322

1 members or present other serious security threats. Inmates are

2 often housed in outdated facilities that are long past their life

3 cycles, and were never designed to accommodate inmates as numerous

4 and complex as today’s jail population. It is in this context,

5 against a challenging backdrop of dwindling fiscal resources and an

6 increasing inmate population, that the Sheriff’s Department has

7 endeavored to fulfill its custodial responsibilities to both

8 inmates and the public.

9

The American Civil Liberties Union’s mission, in part, is to

10 protect inmates’ constitutional rights, and further to ensure that

11 inmates are housed in a safe, humane environment that provides

12 opportunities for rehabilitation. Consistent with these interests,

13 the ACLU’s monitors have, by order of this court and with the

14 cooperation of the Sheriff’s Department, had access to the jail,

15 inmates, and senior Sheriff’s Department jail supervisors.

16

The Sheriff’s Department and the ACLU have a long history of

17 both litigation and collaboration on jail-related matters. During

18 some of that history, this court has decided contested issues and

19 worked with the parties to identify and resolve issues of mutual

20 concern, often without the need of formal litigation. The Los

21 Angeles County Office of Independent Review has also been of great

22 assistance to the court and the parties in resolving disputes.

23

Here, the ACLU, on behalf of Plaintiffs, has presented

24 evidence to the court and to the Sheriff’s Department of alleged

25 instances of deputy-on-inmate and inmate-on-inmate altercations.

26 The ACLU asserts that such examples are the result of deficiencies

27 in the management of the jail system. (First Amended Complaint ¶¶

28 3, 13.)

3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:1323

1

The Sheriff’s Department has acknowledged the ACLU’s concerns,

2 and has made commendable efforts to implement positive jail reforms

3 and new initiatives, such as the establishment of new investigatory

4 and management task forces. The ACLU has made significant

5 contributions to these reform efforts. The court has no doubt that

6 the Sheriff’s Department and the ACLU sincerely share the common

7 goal of making the downtown Los Angeles jail the best possible

8 facility.

9

The court recognizes that, while the Sheriff’s Department and

10 ACLU continue to work together to achieve this common goal,

11 differences may arise requiring a judicial resolution. This

12 lawsuit is a vehicle by which the plaintiffs may seek relief.

13 Here, Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief on

14 behalf of themselves and other current and future inmates in the 15 downtown Los Angeles Jail Complex.1 (FAC ¶¶ 3, 215.) The

16 plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages.

17 III. Legal Standard

18

The party seeking class certification bears the burden of

19 showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at

20 least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met. See Hanon v.

21 Dataprods. Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 23(a)

22 sets forth four prerequisites for class certification:

23 (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact
24 common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
25 defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties

26

27

1 The Jail Complex is comprised of three interconnected

28

facilities: Men’s Central Jail, Twin Towers Correctional Facility, and the Inmate Reception Center (collectively, “the Jails”).

4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:1324
1 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see also Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508.
3 These four requirements are often referred to as numerosity,
4 commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See General Tel. Co.
5 v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982). In determining the
6 propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the
7 plaintiff has stated a cause of action or will prevail on the
8 merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are
9 met. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178
10 (1974). This court, therefore, considers the merits of the
11 underlying claim to the extent that the merits overlap with
12 the Rule 23(a) requirements, but will not conduct a “mini-
13 trial” or determine at this stage whether Plaintiffs could
14 actually prevail. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d
15 970, 981, 983 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011).
16 IV. Discussion
17 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
18 1. Numerosity
19 Plaintiffs must first demonstrate that “the class is so
20 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed.
21 R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a)(1). The Jails currently house
22 thousands of inmates, and are certain to house many more in
23 the future. The court therefore agrees with Plaintiffs’
24 undisputed assertion that the numerosity requirement has been
25 satisfied.
26 2. Commonality
27
28
5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:1325

1

Second, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there are

2 questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ.

3 P. 23(a)(2). “Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed permissively.

4 All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy

5 the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent

6 factual predicates is sufficient . . . .” Hanlon v. Chrysler

7 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, “even a

8 single common question will do,” so long as that question has

9 the capacity to generate a common answer “apt to drive the

10 resolution of the litigation.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

11 Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 2556 (2011) (citations, internal

12 quotations, and alterations omitted).

13

Defendant argues that the commonality requirement is

14 lacking here because “most class members have not been harmed

15 in any way,” and that the “common denominator” of having been

16 subjected to the risk of misconduct is insufficient. (Opp.

17 at 4-5.) In a civil rights suit such as this one, however,

18 “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a

19 system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the

20 putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849,

21 868 (9th Cir. 2001) abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v.

22 California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005). Under such circumstances,

23 individual factual differences among class members pose no

24 obstacle to commonality. Id.; see also Spalding v. City of

25 Oakland, No. C11-2867 THE, 2012 WL 994644 at *2 (N.D. Cal.

26 March 23, 2012).

27

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Sheriff’s department

28 supervisors knew of, and were deliberately indifferent to, a

6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:1326

1 pattern or practice of deputies using or threatening violence

2 against inmates and facilitating inmate-on-inmate violence.

3 As a result, Plaintiffs assert, all class members are at

4 significant risk of excessive violence at the hands of

5 deputies. Resolution of these common questions is likely to

6 yield a common answer to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

7 issues Plaintiffs have raised on behalf of all inmates. Rule

8 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement is, therefore, satisfied.

9

3. Typicality

10

Rule 23(a) also requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that

11 “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are

12 typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R.

13 Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “[R]epresentative claims are ‘typical’ if

14 they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class

15 members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon,

16 150 F.3d at 1020. The complaint alleges that named Plaintiff

17 Rosas was threatened by Sheriff’s deputies after witnessing a

18 display of excessive force against another inmate, and was

19 later himself the target of violence. (FAC ¶¶ 220-223.) The

20 complaint also alleges that named Plaintiff Goodwin was

21 physically assaulted by deputies without provocation. (FAC

22 ¶¶ 228-231.) While the precise nature of the injuries

23 suffered by the named Plaintiffs may differ from those

24 suffered by other class members, the complaint alleges that

25 the same pattern and practice of violence, and deliberate

26 indifference thereto, exposes every class member, including

27 the named Plaintiffs, to the same risk of violent attack.

28

7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:1327

1 Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore typical of the claims of

2 absent class members.

3

4. Adequacy

4

Finally, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that "the

5 representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

6 interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

7 “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1)

8 do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts

9 of interest with other class members and (2) will the named

10 plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously

11 on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

12

Defendant points to no conflict of interest among

13 Plaintiffs’ counsel, but asserts that counsel is nevertheless

14 inadequate by dint of alleged misconduct in a related case.

15 (Opp. at 5.) Defendant’s contention is without merit.

16

Defendant also argues that named Plaintiffs Goodwin and

17 Rosas are inadequate class representatives because they have

18 not shown that they are likely to suffer from unlawful

19 deputy-on-inmate violence in the future, and therefore lack 20 Article III standing.2 (Opp. At 6-7.) In order to

21 demonstrate an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing,

22 a plaintiff must demonstrate an “invasion of a legally

23 protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,

24 and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

25 D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1036

26

27

2 This argument also serves as the basis for Defendant’s

28

separately filed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 45).

8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:1328

1 (9th Cir. 2008), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

2 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Defendant argues that the named

3 Plaintiffs have not shown an imminent harm.

4

To support his argument, Defendant relies primarily upon

5 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). In Lyons,

6 a plaintiff sought injunctive relief after police officers

7 allegedly applied a chokehold on the plaintiff at a traffic

8 stop, without provocation. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 97. The

9 Court held that because the plaintiff could not show a real

10 and immediate threat that he would again be stopped and

11 placed in a chokehold, he could not make a showing of

12 irreparable injury and, therefore, lacked standing to pursue

13 injunctive relief. Id. at 105, 111.

14

Lyons, however, is readily distinguishable. Unlike the

15 plaintiff in Lyons, who could do no more than speculate that

16 he might someday once again interact with law enforcement

17 officers, Plaintiffs here remain incarcerated in the Jails,

18 and will necessarily come into frequent contact with

19 Sheriff’s deputies, including some of the very deputies who

20 are alleged to have engaged in unlawful violent activity.

21 Furthermore, Plaintiffs here have alleged a widespread

22 pattern of violence and indifference to that violence,

23 supported by numerous declarations from inmates, experts, and

24 civilian witnesses. Where defendants have engaged in a

25 pattern of injurious acts in the past, “there is a sufficient

26 possibility that they will engage in them in the near future

27 to satisfy the ‘realistic repetition’ requirement” necessary

28 to demonstrate an actual injury. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 861;

9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:1329

1 see also LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1324 (9th Cir.

2 1985) (distinguishing Lyons from case involving a standard

3 pattern of unconstitutional behavior). Having alleged a

4 pattern of unlawful behavior that is likely to recur, the

5 named Plaintiffs here have demonstrated injury in fact, and

6 are adequate class representatives.

7

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)

8

A party seeking class certification must also

9 demonstrate that at least one of the following three

10 conditions is satisfied: (1) the prosecution of separate

11 actions would create a risk of: (a) inconsistent or varying

12 adjudications, or (b) individual adjudications dispositive of

13 the interests of other members not a party to those

14 adjudications; (2) the party opposing the class has acted or

15 refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class;

16 or (3) questions of law or fact common to the members of the

17 class predominate over any questions affecting only

18 individual members, and a class action is superior to other

19 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of

20 the controversy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Dukes v.

21 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 580 (9th Cir. 2010) (en

22 banc).

23

As noted above, Plaintiffs here seek certification under

24 Rule 23(b)(2). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have

25 provided no evidence whatsoever that Rule 23(b)(2) is

26 satisfied. (Opp. at 3.) The FAC clearly alleges, however,

27 that Sheriff’s command and supervisory staff have been and

28 remain aware of the alleged pattern and practice of unlawful

10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 54 Filed 06/07/12 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:1330

1 violence and are deliberately indifferent to it. The

2 complaint further alleges that multiple deputies ignored

3 named Plaintiff Rosas’ requests for a complaint form. (FAC ¶

4 223.) Plaintiffs have also submitted expert declarations

5 stating that Defendant has failed to rein in deputies’

6 abusive behavior. (See, e.g., Declaration of Thomas Parker

7 in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification ¶

8 10). In light of these allegations, the court is satisfied

9 that Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that the party

10 opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds

11 generally applicable to the class.

12 V. Conclusion

13

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to

14 Certify Class is GRANTED.3 The court hereby certifies a class

15 comprised of all present and future inmates confined in the

16 Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, pursuant to Federal

17 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The court reiterates that

18 the certification of the plaintiff class has no bearing on

19 the viability or veracity of Plaintiffs’ claims. The court

20 remains available to assist the parties in mediating

21 disputes, while recognizing the possibility that further

22 litigation may also be necessary.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 Dated: June 7, 2012 26

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

27

28

3 For the reasons discussed in Section III.A.4, supra, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the FAC is DENIED.

11

 
 1 PETER J. ELIASBERG (SB# 189110)
peliasberg~aclu-sc.org
2 MARlSOL ORlHUELA (SB# 261375) morihuela@aclu-sc.org
3 ACLU FOtrNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 W. 8th Street
4 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500
5 Facsunile: (:213) 977-5299

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN, on behalf of
7 themselves and of those similarly situated

8 (Counsel continued on next page)

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on behalf of themselves
14 and of those similarly situated,

15

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION

16

vs .

17 18

LUCEonudRneOrtsyYhJeBariiAlfsf·C, PLAAozsUSAhLne~Tr~iAf!feNosAfSLKjo1Ase,rAifnfgseles

Department; CECIL RHAMBO,

19 Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles Sheriff s

Department; and DENNIS BURNS,

20 Chief of the Custody Operations

Division, Los Angeles Sheriffs

21 Department,

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 MARGARET WINTER (pro hac vice application
fort~coming)
2 mwmter(ajnpp-aclu.org ERlC BALABAN (pro hac vice application
3 forthcoming) ebaJaban@npp-aclu.org
4 DAVID M. SHAPIRO (pro hac vice application
forthcoming)
5 dsh~Qiro (ajnpp-aclu.org NATIOl\tAr, PRlSON PROJECT OF THE
6 AMERlCAN CIV1L LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
7 915 15th St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005
8 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 FacsImile: (202) 393-4931
9 DONNA M. MELBY (SB# 86417)
10 donnamelby(ajpaulhastmgs.com
11 iJoOhHndNurSr.anDtU(aljtpRauAlhNaTsti(nSgBs#. c2o1m7345)
JADE H. LEUNG (SB# 279651) 12 jadeleungCa),paulhastiJlgs.com
ELIZABEtH C. MUELLER (SB# 278283) 13 bethmueller(ajpaulhastings.com
PAUL HASTINGS LLP 14 515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor 15 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000 16 Facsunile: (213) 627-0705
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN, on
18 behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

l. This action is brought pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth

3 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

4 Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).

5

2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the

6 Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 139l.

7 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

8

3. Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin are inmates in the

9 custody of Sheriff Leroy Baca in the Los Angeles County Jails. Rosas and

10 Goodwin have been beaten and threatened with violence by deputies of the Los

11 Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the "Department" or "LASD"). Mr. Rosas

12 and Mr. Goodwin have also witnessed deputies beating other inmates. The abuse

13 that Rosas and Goodwin suffered and witnessed is typical of the abuse inflicted by

14 deputies on countless other inmates in the jails, and is part of a pattern and practice

15 of deputy-on-inmate violence that has persisted for many years. In the last few

16 years alone, there have been dozens of documented cases of extreme and unjustified

17 violence by deputies against inmates. Defendants are aware of the culture of

18 deputy violence that pervades the Jails but have failed to take reasonable measures

19 to remedy the problem. Plaintiffs charge Sheriff Leroy Baca, Undersheriff Paul

20 Tanaka, Assistant Sheriff Cecil Rhambo, and Chief of Custody Operations

21 Department Dennis Bums! with violations of Plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth

22 Amendment rights to reasonable protection from violence and excessive force.

23 Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other current and future

24 inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

25

26 ! "Defendants" collectively refers to Leroy Baca ("Sheriff Baca"), Paul Tanalca ("Undersheriff Tanaka"), Cecil Rhambo ("Assistant Sheriff Rhambo"), and Dennis
27 Bums ("Chief Bums"). Defendants are Los Angeles County officials responsible forpohcies governing the conduct ofLASD deputies and for the safety oIthe
28 inmates in their custody in the Los Angeles County Jails.

-1-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

4. Los Angeles County has the largest jail system in the world,

2 with an average daily population of approximately 15,000 inmates. The great

3 majority ofthe inmates are pre-trial detainees who are not being held pursuant to a

4 criminal conviction. Large numbers of inmates in the jails have not committed, and

5 are not charged with, with violent offenses. There are inmates held in the jails on

6 Immigration & Customs Enforcement (rCE) holds, charges of public intoxication,

7 traffic violations, and warrants for failure to appear on a wide variety of minor 8 offenses.2 Indeed a number of the inmates whose beatings are described in this

9 complaint were being detained on non-violent misdemeanors, improper warrants

10 and other minor offenses. See paragraphs 71-72, 161. Deputy violence against

11 inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails is commonplace, but it is especially

12 pervasive in three facilities that comprise a single complex on Bauchet Street in

13 downtown Los Angeles: Men's Central Jail, Twin Towers Correctional Facility

14 ("TTCF") and the Inmate Reception Center ("IRC") (collectively, "the Jails").

15

5. Inmates in the Jails live in fear of deputy violence. It is typical

16 for deputies to subject unresisting inmates to grossly excessive force by slamming

17 inmates' heads into walls, punching them in the face with their fists, kicking them

18 with their boots, and shooting them multiple times with their tasers - and for these

19 beatings to result in serious injuries to the inmates, including broken legs, fractured

20 eye sockets, shattered jaws, broken teeth, severe head injuries, nerve damage,

21 dislocated joints, collapsed lungs, and wounds requiring dozens of stitches and

22 staples. Deputies sadistically beat inmates with serious mental illness. They have

23 beaten inmates who are already in fragile medical condition, including inmates in

24 wheelchairs. Deputies have beaten inmates for asking for medical treatment,· for

25

26 2 Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Report, at xvi Vera Institute of

Justice, September 2011 ("Vera staff observed arraignments for people who spent

27 one or two nights in jail for FTA on charges of not paying a $1.50 metro fare. Vera

28

was told that some judicial officers routinely set bail at $50,000 for one FTA, and jail sentences for FTA for jay walking and failure to pay traffic fines.").

-2-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 the color oftheir skin, or for no apparent reason at all. Deputies also enlist and

2 encourage other inmates to carry out savage attacks.

3

6. Many of the beatings that routinely occur in the jails are far

4 more severe than the infamous 1991 beating of Rodney King by members of the

5 Los Angeles Police Department. The violence is not the work of a few rogue

6 deputies. Rather, it is a systemic problem that has continued unchecked for

7 decades.

8

7. Many deputies belong to gangs inside the Jails. Like members

9 of street gangs, these deputies sport tattoos to signal their gang membership. They

10 beat up inmates to gain prestige among their peers, and "earn their ink" by breaking

11 inmates' bones. They seek to control the Jails, and to a significant degree they do

12 control the areas where they work.

13

8. The "3000 Boys" is one such deputy gang, named for the third

14 floor ofMen's Central Jail where its members work. Members ofthe 3000 Boys,

15 who sport a "3000" tattoo on the backs of their necks, inflict violence on inmates,

16 foment violence among inmates, and even deploy violence on other deputies who

17 resist their abusive practices. A similar deputy gang operates on the second floor of

18 Men's Central Jail. On information and belief, members of the "2000 Boys"

19 designate their gang membership with tattoos of a Roman numeral "II" on their

20 legs. Violent deputy gangs have operated in the LASD at least since the 1980s and

21 perhaps since the early 1970s. The 3000 Boys and 2000 Boys have been operating

22 with Defendants' knowledge and acquiescence.

23

9. Defendants' ongoing failure to halt these abuses has

24 communicated to the deputy gangs that they can carry out brutal assaults on inmates

25 with impunity. In fact, Defendants' permissiveness has so emboldened the deputy

26 gangs that they have begun to carry out their brutal assaults on inmates more and

27 more openly, and even in the presence of civilian volunteer workers in the Jails.

28 Jail chaplains and the court-appointed jail monitors of the American Civil Liberties

-3-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Union ("ACLU") have provided eyewitness accounts of deputies beating non-

2 resisting inmates in the Jails.

3

10. There is a widespread fear among inmates of reporting deputy

4 misdeeds to the ACLU or anyone else, because deputies regularly retaliate against

5 those who lodge complaints, with beatings, strip searches, body cavity searches,

6 destructive cell shake-downs, confiscation of belongings, and trumped-Up

7 disciplinary and criminal charges.

8

11. Defendants and all ofthe high-ranking officials in the

9 Department are aware - and, in the case of at least three of them, have been .aware

10 for years - of the pattern of deputy violence, intimidation, and retaliation against

11 inmates. It has been publicly reported, documented, and conde=ed on scores of

12 occasions during the past twenty years. Starting in 2006, a captain and a now-

l3 retired commander, both in the custody division, have reported to Defendants

14 problems with deputy gangs and deputies using excessive and unnecessary force,

15 but Defendants did not take appropriate steps to address the problem. Sheriff Baca,

16 Undersheriff Tanaka, Chief Bums, and other supervisors in these jails and at the

17 highest levels of the Department have acquiesced in, fostered, and implicitly

18 authorized the abuse by failing to promulgate adequate policies on the use of force,

19 failing to adequately train and supervise deputies in the face of historical and

20 continued evidence of abuse, failing to conduct meaningful investigations of reports

21 of excessive force, failing to hold guilty deputies accountable, and ignoring

22 evidence that deputies and other Department officials are covering up incidents of

23 excessive force.

24

12. In 1992, the prestigious Kolts Commission - formed at the

25 behest of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to conduct a review of the

26 policies, practices, and procedures ofthe Sheriffs Department - issued a scathing

27 repolt documenting numerous incidents of excessive force, lax discipline, and the

28 presence of deputy gangs. The Kolts Report resulted in the appointment of Special

-4-

COMPLAlNT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Counsel to the Board of Supervisors for Oversight of the Sheriffs Department,

2 Merrick Bobb. Bobb issued 30 semi-annual reports between 1993 and 2011. The

3 County:s Office of Independent Review ("OIR"), headed by Michael Gennaco, has

4 repeatedly reported incidents of serious abuse to SheriffBaca. The ACLU, which

5 serves as class counsel to all detainees in Los Angeles County Jails in Rutherford v.

6 Baca, No. 75-04111 (CD. Cal.), and which has been appointed by the District

7 Court in that case to monitor conditions in the Los Angdes County Jails, has

8 submitted multiple reports to SheriffBaca over several years, documenting more

9 than 70 cases of extreme deputy-on-inmate violence.

10

13. Despite SheriffBaca's actual knowledge of this pattern of

11 violence and cover-ups, he has failed over a period of many years to take

12 reasonable measures to halt the abuses. Even now that the pervasiveness and the

13 extraordinary brutality of the deputy-on-inmate abuse has become common

14 knowledge through the release of reports by the ACLU, SheriffBaca has left in

15 place his principal subordinates in charge of supervising the Custody Division of

16 the Sheriffs Department, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka and Chief Burns, who have

17 day-to-day responsibility for ensuring the inmates' safety, and under whose regime

18 this pattern of abuse has flourished.

19

14. The ultimate goal of this lawsuit is to end the longstanding

20 pattern of deputy-on-inmate abuse by requiring Defendants to put in place a system

21 of accountability, which they have for so long failed to do. That system must

22 include, at nUnimum, adequate policies on the use of force, proper training on the

23 policies, proper supelvision of deputies, thorough review of use of force incidents,

24 and appropriate discipline for improper use of force or failure to report its use.

25 Ill. PARTIES

26

15 . Plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin are inmates in the custody of the

27 LASD who were previously housed in Men's Central Jail and are currently housed

28 in Twin Towers. Plaintiffs have been subjected to deputy violence and threats of

-5-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIV E RE LIEF

1 violence and they have witnessed deputies violently abusing other inmates. They

2 are at continuing risk of being subjected to deputy violence as a result of

3 Defendants' acts and omissions.

4

16. Defendant Leroy Baca has been the Shetiff of Los Angeles

5 County since 1998. As Sheriff, he is the chief executive officer of the LASD. By

6 California law, the Sheriff is answerable for the safekeeping of the inmates in his

7 custody. CaL Gov't Code §§ 26605,26610; Cal. Penal Code § 4006. SheriffBaca

8 is responsible for the management and control of all Los Angeles County Jails, and

9 for all matters relating to the selection, supervision, promotion, training, and

10 discipline of the unifonned staff, including the supervisory security staff, of the

11 County Jails. He is also responsible for the care, custody, and control of all inmates

12 housed in the County Jails. Sheriff Baca is regularly provided with reports of

13 applications offorce, allegations of unreported and excessive use offorce, and

14 other breaches of security in the County Jails. Plaintiffs sue Sheri ff Baca in his

15 official capacity.

16

17. Defendant Paul Tanaka is Undersheriff of the LASD. He serves

17 as second-in-command of the Department and oversees its daily operations. Along

18 with Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka is also responsible for the care, custody,

19 and control of all inmates housed in the County Jails. Plaintiffs sue Undersheriff

20 Tanaka in his official capacity.

21

18. Defendant Cecil Rhambo is one of two Assistant Sheriffs of the

22 LASD. He oversees the leadership of the Department's Custody Division, among

23 other responsibilities. Plaintiffs sue Assistant SheriffRhambo in his official

24 capacity.

25

19. Defendant Dennis Burns has been employed by the LASD for

26 more than 36 years. He is currently assigned as the Chief of the Custody

27 Operations Division which, along with the Correctional Services Division, is

28 responsible for the operation of the County Jails. The responsibilities of the

-6-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Custody Operations Division include the tracking of violent incidents and the

2 formulation of responses designed to protect the personal safety of Department staff

3 and inmates in its custody. He has formerly served as Captain ofthe LASD's

4 Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB"), which is responsible for conducting administrative

5 investigations against Department members who have engaged in misconduct by

6 violating the Department's policies and procedures. Plaintiffs sue Chief Burns in

7 his official capacity.

8

20. All Defendants are sued in their official capacities for

9 declaratory and injunctive relief. At all times referred to in this complaint,

10 Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the

11 Department, and acting under color of state and municipal law.

12 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13

A. There Is A Longstanding, Pervasive, And Notorious Culture,

14

Pattern, And Practice Of Deputy Violence Against Inmates In The

15

Los Angeles County Jails

16

21. There is a longstanding pattern and practice in the Los Angeles

17 County Jails, and particularly in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, of

18 deputy-on-inmate violence and deputy-instigated inmate-on-inmate abuse.

19 Multiple oversight and monitoring agencies, including the U.S. Department of

20 Justice, the LASD's OIR, the Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of

21 Supervisors for oversight of the Sheriffs Department, and the ACLU, have issued

22 reports on the use of excessive force and other abuses by the LASD against the

23 inmates in its custody and in many cases made recommendations to address the

24 problem.

25

22. According to Thomas Parker, a former FBI agent and Assistant

26 Special Agent in Charge ofthe Bureau's Los Angeles Field Office, who oversaw

27 the FBI investigation into the force, "There is at least a two-decade history of

28 corruption within the ranks of the LASD.... [NJo one at the command level ...

-7-

COMPLAINT FOR INmNCTIVE RELIEF

1 appears to have been held accountable and appropriately punished for failure to

2 properly supervise and manage their subordinate personnel and resources. In my

3 opinion, this has provided the 'seedbed' for continued lax supervision, violence,

4 and corruption within LASD and the cOlmty jails it administers." Sheriff Baca and

5 other LASD officials have "essentially abdicated their responsibilities to provide a

6 safe, secure, and corruption-free incarceration environment within the Los Angeles

7 County Jail System." The result, Mr. Parker concluded, is a pattern of inmates

8 "suffering severe injuries, maiming, and death, some caused by fellow inmates, but

9 most often at the hands of, or with the acquiescence or assistance of, the deputy

10 sheriffs who are their keepers." Mr. Parker states, "I have never experienced any

11 facility exhibiting the volume and repetitive patterns of violence, misfeasance, and

12 malfeasance impacting the Los Angeles County Jail system."

13

23. In May 1990, the Los Angeles Times published an investigative

14 report disclosing that excessive force cases represented three-fourths of all major

15 legal settlements and jury awards over a three-year period; that half of the deputies

16 involved in major cases had been sued in the past for brutality; and that one training

17 officer had been sued ten times in ten years. The newspaper quoted sources

18 familiar with the Department who claimed that a code of silence made deputies

19 reluctant to testify against fellow officers, even those who repeatedly used

20 excessive force. The Department kept no separate records ofthe deputies who were 21 sued for excessive force or the outcomes of the suits.3

22

24. In 1989, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors formed a

23 blue-ribbon commission to conduct a review of "the policies, practices and

24
3 Merrick Bobb, Police Assessment Resource Center ("PARC"), 10th Semiannual 25 Report 12 (Feb. 1999), available at
http://www.parc.info/client files/LASDIl Oth%20Semiannual%20Report.pdf (citing 26 Daryl Kelley & Victor Merlna, Alleged Brutality by Deputies Costs County: law
EnJorcement: Excessive-Force Lawsuits Have Nearly Doubled in Recent Years. 27 SheriffBlock Stands by Department Policies and His Officers, Los Angeles Times,
May"17, 1990, at AI, available at http://articles.latimes.comlI990-05-27/news/mn28 514_1_excessive-force).

-8-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 procedures ofthe Sheriffs Department, including recruitment, training, job

2 performance and evaluation, record keeping and management practices, as they

3 relate to allegations of excessive force, the community sensitivity of deputies and

4 the Department's citizen complaint procedure." The Board of Supervisors

5 appointed the late Judge James G. Kolts ("Kolts") as Special Counsel to the Board.

6 Kolts was a former star prosecutor and a highly respected former Los Angeles

7 County Superior Court judge. The team Kolts assembled for this project became

8 known as the Kolts Commission. In July 1992, after an extensive investigation, the

9 Kolts Commission issued a scathing 359-page report (the "Kolts Report,,).4 The

10 Kolts Report detailed a history of excessive use of force and lax discipline within

11 the LASD, and concluded that the Department had failed to reform itself. The 12 Commission recommended civilian monitoring ofthe LASD.5

13

25. In January 1993, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to

14 carry out the recommendations of the Kolts Commission, and the Board retained

15 Special Counsel, Merrick J. Bobb, to monitor LASD's compliance with the Kolts 16 Report and to report to the Board semi-annually regarding such compliance.6 Bobb

17 continues to serve to this day as Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board

18 of Supervisors, and remains the Board of Supervisors' monitor of the LASD and its 19 operations.7

20

26. In his fourth Semiannual Report, dated June 1995, Special

21 Counsel Bobb repOt1ed the following:

22

27. "[W]e continued to find too many cases involving unnecessary

23 force in responses to verbal taunts or passive noncompliance. Most of these

24 4James G. Kolts, Kolts Report (July 1992), available at
25 http://www.parc.info/client files/Special%20Reports/3%20%20Kolts%20Report%20-%20LASD.pdf.
26 5 Id. at 4 345-49. 6 NfetTick Bobb, PARC, 1st Semiannual Report 1(Oct. 1993}, available at
27 http://www.parc.info!client filesILASD/ lst%20Scmiannual%20Rcport.pdf. 7 MetTick Bobb, PARC, 30Th Semiannual Report (Sept. 2011 ), available at
28 http://www.parc.info!clientJliesILASD/30th%20Semiannua1%20Report.pdf.

-9-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 incidents arose in the jails, where we found a substantial number of instances where

2 deputies appear to over-react to apparently slight provocations, like stepping out of

3 the chow line, by shoving the inmate against the wall or slapping him in the face."

4 Further, the use of "transparently phony pretext[s] ('the suspect stared at me

5 aggressively') to justify or excuse unnecessary or excessive force ... is still

6 practiced to an uncomfortable and unacceptable degree in the custody setting."s

7

28. "[W]e do not believe that The Department has yet implemented

8 the Kolts recommendations with respect to force investigations."9

9

29. "In its analysis of over 1,000 force-related investigations

10 spa=ing a five-year period, the Kolts Report concluded that the Department was

11 too lenient in the way it disciplined officers found to have engaged in excessive

12 force. The situation has not changed very much.... [Claptains remain disinclined

13 to impose substantial penalties for serious misconduct."lo "[W]e continue to find

14 cases in which the decision to exonerate the officer [in excessive force cases]

15 simply defies explanation, and there are still incidents, almost all in the custody

16 setting, where the use of force is either senseless or overly severe."J]

17

30. In a 1997 letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General of

18 the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOl") to the then-Los

19 Angeles County Executive, Joa=e Sturges, the DOJ reported that "Inmates who are

20 mentally ill or housed in mental health housing are subject to an unacceptably high

21 risk of physical abuse and other mistreatment at the hands of other inmates and

22 custodial staff. Moreover, the Jail does not adequately investigate allegations of

23 abuse against its inrnates.,,12 The DOJ reported that they had "received numerous

24

8 Merrick Bobb, PARC, 4th Semiannual Re~ort 15 (June 19952, available at 25 http://www.parc.info/client filesILASD/4tliYo20Semia=ual%20Report.pdf.

9 Id. at 19.

-

ra: 26 I<TJQ. at 22. II at 20-21 femphasis added). 27 12 Letter from sabelle Katz Pinzler, Civil Rights Division, USDOJ, to Joanne

Sturges, Los Angeles Count)' Executive, eRIpA Investigation ofMental Health 28 Services in the Los Angeles County Jail 17 (Sept. 5, 1997).

-10-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 reports from inmates and advocates regarding serious physical abuse of inmates in

2 mental health housing ... including kicks, punches, beatings, and sexual assaults.

3 Although the Jail claims that it has discounted some of these claims ... the

4 investigation ofthese claims was inadequate and serious questions remain

5 regarding the extent ofphysical abuse ofmentally ill inmates. We agree with

6 Special Counsel Merrick Bobb's finding that in the Jail 'there is callous treatment

7 [of inmates] at times, a problem that LASD management knows about but has not

8 acted sufficiently aggressively to resolve.,,,13 Furthermore, "[t]he Jail's failure to

9 investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations of abuse against mentally ill

10 inmates, and its failure to take appropriate action in response to incidents of abuse,

11 enables the abuse of these inmates to continue.,,14 The report also stated, "The

12 treatment received by one inmate indicates that excessive use of force and physical

13 mistreatment of inmates with mental illnesses may be in part the result of

14 inadequate training."15

15

31. In his tenth Semiannual Report, dated February 1999, Special

16 Counsel Bobb pointed to a long list of recent crises on the custody side of the

17 Department, including "troubling inmate deaths at the hands of custody

18 personnel[,]" "inmate on inmate violence[,]" and "vigilante-1i1ee behavior at Twin 19 Towers.,,16

20

32. On December 19, 2002, the Los Angeles County and the United

21 States entered into a Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Mental Health

22 Services at the Los Angeles County Jail ("MOA,,).J7 Sheriff Baca was one of the

23 signers of the MOA, which was entered into "to avoid potential litigation

24

13 Id. at 17-18 (citing Merrick Bobb, PARC, 6th Semiannual Report 11-13 (Sept. 25 19%)).
ra: 14 rd. at 21.
26 15 at 18.

16 KIerrick Bobb, supra note 2, at 17. 27 17 Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and Los Angeles County,

28

California Regarding Mental Health Services at the Los Angeles CountY. Jail, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documentsllacountyj ml_mhophp.

-11-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 concerning the mental health services at the Jail."ls Among the provisions in the

2 MOA were ones addressing training of correctional staff in "professional and

3 humane treatment of mentally ill inmates," and the prevention and investigation of 4 abuse of mentally ill inmates.19

5

33. In March 2003, the US DOl sent to County Counsel a

6 compliance letter on the 2002 MOA about treatment of the mentally ill. The letter

7 concluded that the Sheriffs Department was not in compliance with the

8 requirement ofthe MOA that LASD "provide mandatory orientation and continuing

9 competency-based training for correctional staff in the identification and custodial

10 care of mentally ill inmates including, but not necessarily limited to

11

a. interpreting or responding to bizarre or aberrant behaviors,

12

b. recognizing and responding to indications of suicidal thoughts,

13

c. proper suicide observation,

14

d. recognizing common side effects of psychotropic medications,

15

e. professional and humane treatment of mentally ill inmates, and

16

f. response to mental health crises including suicide intervention

17 and cell extractions."

18

34. In November 2004, Special Counsel Merrick Bobb presented to

19 SheriffBaca and the Board of Supervisors a confidential report finding that "Los

20 Angeles County's largest jail is so outdated, understaffed and riddled with security

21 flaws that it jeopardizes the lives of guards and inmates.,,20 The report concluded

22 that Men's Central Jail suffers from "lax supervision and a long-standing jail

23 culture that has shortchanged accountability for inmate safety and security.,,21

24

ra. IS Id.
25 19

20 Jack Leonard & Richard Winton, L.A. Jail Called Deadly, Outdated, Los Angeles 26 Times; Feb. 3",2005, available at http://articlesJatimes.coin/2005/feb/03/10cal/me-

Jai13 [nereinaner L.A. Jail Called Deadly, OutdatedJ.

27 1 Megan Garve)' & Richard Winton, Critics ofJails Voice Alarm, Los Angeles

28

Times; Feb. 14, 2006, available at http://articfes.latimes.com!2006/feb/141l0cal/mejails14.

-12-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

35. In his nineteenth Semia=ual Report, dated February 2005,

2 Special Counsel Merrick Bobb noted:

3

From the Kolts Report onward, there has been a

4

paradoxical contradiction between Internal Affairs

5

investigations that exonerated the officer and litigation

6

arising out of the same incident that cost the County

7

substantial money in settlement and judgments. Those

8

same disparities continue to exist after 2003 and 2004....

9

While at times one might find instances in which the

10

County's lawyers have unwisely settled, it is far more

1 1

common to find cases where the LASD let an officer off

12

the hook when a judge or jury would not. We can only

13

say as we have in the past that these disparities "fuell] the

14

fire of those who would strip the Sheriff of the privilege

15

of investigating and disciplining his own employees."

16

(citing the Fifteenth Semiannual Report at 73).22

17

36. In June 2008 the ACLU issued a report by Dr. Terry Kupers, an

18 expert on mental illness among incarcerated populations.23 The report was filed in

19 the Rutherford litigation, served on SheriffBaca's counsel, and sent directly to a

20 number of high-ranking officials in-the LASD Custody Division. In his report

21 Dr. Kupers made a number of conclusions including: "[A]t the Los Angeles

22 County Jail the claims by prisoners [of abuse by deputies] are so widespread, and

23 the reports of abuse so consistent among multiple reporters, that is seems very

24 likely there is an unacceptably high incidence of custodial abuse. Multiple

25 prisoners have told me about abuse they have undergone or witnessed, and most say

26 22 Merrick Bobb, PARC, 19th Semiannual Re!?,ort 38 (Feb. 2005), available at
27 http://www.parc.info/client fil es1LASD/19th Yo20Semia=ual%iOReport.pdf. 23 Terry A. K~ers, Rep.0rt on Mental Health Issues at Los Angeles County Jail
28 (June 27, 200~), available at http://www.aclu-sc.orgldocuments/viewI173.

-13-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 it is disproportionately directed at prisoners with serious mental illness."24
2 Dr. Kupers also opined that the problem "is made worse by inappropriate un-

3 diagnosing and consignment of prisoners suffering from serious mental illness to 4 general popUlation housing."25 Dr. Kupers further found that "there seems to be

5 very little mental health training for most other officers, and given the fact that

6 officers work over-time in most assignments, this means that prisoners with mental 7 illness outside of Tower 1 are often guarded by officers with little or no training in 8 mental health."26 He also found "disturbing evidence of custodial abuse of

9 prisoners with serious mental illness," and "crowding and idleness at every level[] 10 further exacerbate the problems.,,27

11

37. Dr. Kupers also made numerous recommendations to address

12 the serious problems he found with the treatment of mentally ill prisoners including l3 that "[a]ll officers ... be required to undergo intensive training in working with 14 prisoners with mental illness" and that jail officials "halt custodial abuse" by

15 implementing "zero tolerance from the top, education for prisoners about their

16 rights and the grievance process, training and support to encourage staff to report 17 abuse by other staff, a confidential complaint system that fosters prisoner trust and 18 action, and prompt and thorough investigation with appropriate consequences for 19 offending staff.,,28

20

38. In April 2010, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy, Joshua

21 Sather, who had graduated at the top of his recruit class, resigned after only a few
22 weeks on the job, alleging that a supervisor made him beat up a mentally ill jail
23 inmate. Sather was the sole Honor Recruit in his graduating class from the 24 academy, and had been recognized for his leadership and other abilities. As with

25 virtually all rookies, his first assignment was jail duty. On March 22, 2010, Sather
26 24 Id. at 41.
25 I([ 27 26 I([ at 21.
27 I([ at 44.
28 28 I([ at 49.

-14-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 was working on the sixth floor mental health ward of Twin Towers. At some point

2 during Sather's shift, he, his supervisor and other deputies used force on a mentally

3 ill inmate. Soon afterward, Sather, crying and distraught, called his uncle, a veteran

4 Sheriff's detective, and told him that he had participated in an unjustified beating,

5 that shortly before the beating his supervisor said, "We're go=a go in and teach

6 this guy a lesson," and that the attack had been covered up. Sather's uncle

7 confronted the supervisor about making his nephew "beat up 'dings. ",29 Sheriff's

8 officials launched an investigation and determined that an uncooperative inmate

9 had been subdued by force, but concluded that no misconduct had occurred.

10

39. In May 2010, the ACLU National Prison Project and the ACLU

11 of Southern California submitted to SheriffBaca and to the Rutherford Court the

12 ACLU's "Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail- 2008-

13 2009.,,30 The report included declarations documenting scores of complaints from

14 inmates and their families about deputy-inflicted injuries, ranging from broken ribs

15 and black eyes to severe head wounds that required staples. The report also

16 documented a persistent pattern of retaliation and threats of retaliation by deputies

17 against inmates who protested the conditions of their confmement.

18

40. In September 2010, the ACLU National Prison Project and the

19 ACLU of Southern California submitted to Sheriff Baca and filed with the

20 Rutherford Court the ACLU's "Interim Report on Conditions in the Los Angeles

21 County Jails.")1 That report stated:

22 29 Robert Faturechi, L.A. County Deputy Says He Was Forced to Beat Mentally III Inmate, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 7,2011, available at
23 http://articles.latunes.comJ20 11l0ctl07/10callla-me-honor-recruit-20 111 007. 30 Mary Tiedeman & Daniel BaIlon, ACLU National Prison Project & ACLU of
24 Southern California, Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail 2008-2009 (May 5, 2010), filed in Rutherford v. Baca, 75-cv-0411l-DDP (no.
25 217). The report is also available at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-5-5AnnualReport-JailConditionsatMCJ.pdf.
26 31 Mary TIedeman et aI., ACLU National Prison Project & ACLU of Southern California, 2010 Interim Report on Conditions in the Los Angeles County Jails
27 (Sept. 9, 2010), filed in Rutherford v. Baca, 75-cv-04111-DDP (no. 226). The report is also available at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-9-9-
28 LACountyJailsReport.pdf.

-15-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I

The ACLU's 2009 Annual Report describes the pervasive

2

pattern of violence that we observed in Men's Central Jail

3

(MCJ) in 2009. During the first eight months of2010, the

4

violence has continued unahated. One aspect of the

5

violence we discussed in our 2009 report was deputies'

6

use of excessive and unjustified force, which continues to

7

date: in the five-month period from March 10 through

8

August 10, 2010, we received more than 70 complaints of

9

excessive and/or unjustified force, or retaliation by

10

deputies against prisoners, or both. Twenty of the

11

prisoners making these complaints have provided us with

12

sworn written statements.32

13

41. In December 20 I 0, the media reported on a large-scale brawl at

14 an LASD Christmas party at a banquet hall in Montebello. The brawl was between

15 members ofthe 3000 Boys (the deputy gang discussed above in Paragraph 8) and

16 other deputies who worked in Men's Central Jail. In commenting publicly on the

17 incident, Sheriff Baca characterized it as the "drunkenness of a few bad apples,"

18 and opined that cops "know how to take care of themselves," and that they need to

19 "man up and say, 'I'm not a wimp. '" Sheriff Baca insisted that "the core of what

20 occurred with these 3000 boys ... wasn't their tattoo. It wasn't their unit. It was

21 their friendship and their drinking.,,33

22

42. The OIR, however, disagreed, stating, "Perhaps most concerning

23 is the evidence that jail supervisors apparently knew about the use of 'gang-like'

24 signs and other troubling behavior well before the emption of violence at the

25 Christmas party.,,34

26 32 Id. at 3.
33 KTLA Sf-eCial Report: The Gang Behind the Badge? Part 4 (KTLA television 27 broadcast, available at http://www.ktla.comlvideobetal?watchld=53592a86-dc74-
4336-9cb -323ea72e02d5. 28 34 Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, Violence in the Los Angeles

-16-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

43. On September 25, 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

2 FBI was conducting a criminal investigation into deputy abuse at the Jails.35

3

44. On September 28,2011, the ACLU filed an Annual Report in

4 Rutherford v. Baca, reporting seventy cases of extreme deputy abuse in the

5 previous year, including accounts by civilian eyewitnesses of savage deputy 6 beatings of inmates in the Jails.36

7

45. On October 13, 2011, the OIR issued a report stating that the

8 Sheriffs Department has failed over many years to follow through on proposals to

9 address violence in the Jails.37

10

46. In early December 2011, Robert Olmsted, a retired top LASD

11 official who had been the Captain in charge of Men's Central Jail before being

12 promoted to Commander in the LASD's Custody Division, and who oversaw both

13 Men's Central Jail and Twin Towers, publicly disclosed that Sheriff Baca and other

14 senior Department staff, including Defendants Tanaka and Bums, have long had

15 actual knowledge of the pattern of widespread deputy violence in the Jails.

16 Olmsted had repeatedly informed Defendants Baca, Tanaka, and Bums of such

17 problems, and tried to raise red flags about shoddy investigations that allowed

18 deputies to escape scrutiny for using force. Olmsted had also voiced concerns to

19 them about deputies forming gang-like aggressive cliques. Chief Bums told

20 Olmsted that it was impossible to change the deputy culture in Men's Central Jail.

21 Sheriff Baca never followed up with Commander Olmsted after he twice

22 approached him about problems in Men's Central Jail. See Paragraphs 197 - 203,

23 for further discussion of Olmsted and his perspective on the problems in the Jails.

24 County Jails: A Report on Investigations and Outcomes 8 (Oct. 2011), available at http://laoir.com/reportsIOIR-Report-on-Violence-in-the-Jails-(Oct.20 11 ).pdf.
25 35 Robert Faturechi, FBI Probing ReEorts ofBeatings in L.A. County Jazls, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 25, 2011, avazlable at
26 http://articles.latimes.com/20ll/sep/25/locaI/la-me-fbi-jails-20110925. 36 Sarah Liebowitz et aI., ACLU Wational Prison Project & ACLU of Southern
27 California, Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail (Sept. 28, 2011), filed in RutherJord v. Baca, 75-cv-0411l-DDP lno. 294).
28 37 Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, supra note 31, at 7.

-17-

COMPLAfNT FOR fNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

47. On January 10,2012 Sheriff Baca testified to the Board of

2 Supervisors that use of force often arises when inmates have been declassified from

3 mental health housing in TTCF Tower 1 to be returned to Men's Central Jail. This

4 practice of improperly declassifying mentally ill inmates from mental health

5 housing in Tower 1 and placing them in general population in MCJ is one that

6 Dr. Kupers identified almost four years earlier as resulting in the abuse of mentally

7 ill inmates.

8

48. On January 11, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

9 Sheriffs Department had admitted that use offorce against inmates in the Los

10 Angeles County jails was disproportionately directed at inmates with mental illness.

11 "Los Angeles County jailers are more likely to use force against mentally ill

12 inmates than other prisoners, according to a new Sheriff s Department report that

13 acknowledges the lockups need specially trained staff to reduce the violence."38

14 This admission comes almost four years after Dr. Kupers concluded that deputy on

15 inmate abuse was disproportionately directed at mentally ill inmates, that deputies

16 lacked proper training in dealing with the mentally ill, and recommended that "[aJll

17 officers ... be required to undergo intensive training in working with prisoners

18 with mental illness."

19

49. On January 14,2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

20 United States had filed felony bribery charges against Gilbert Michel, a deputy in

21 the Sheriffs Department Custody Division?9 The article also reported that Deputy

22 Michel had "made statements which implicated him, along with several other jail

23 employees, as having participated in four prior unreported incidents of improper

24 uses of force."

25
38 Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi, L. A. County Jailers More Likely to Use Force 26 on Mentally III Inmates, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 11,2012, available at
http://www.latimes.cominews/locallla-me-sheriff~j ails-20120111,0,2284536.story. 27 39 Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonardi 1st Charge Filed in FBI Probe ofL.A. Sheriff's
Deputy Misconduct, Los Angeles Tlmes, Jan. 14,2012, available at 28 http:/fwww.latimes.comlla-me-deputy-cellphone-20 120114,0,7670956.story.

-18-

COMPLAINT FOR INmNCTIVE RELIEF

1

B. Representative Examples Of Deputy Violence Against Inmates

2

50. Degrading, cruel, and sadistic deputy attacks on inmates are not

3 isolated incidents at the Jails; they are commonplace. Time and again, numerous

4 deputies attack one inmate. Even as the inmate lies motionless on the ground, new

5 deputies are summoned by radio and join in the attack. In the course of a beating, it

6 is a common practice for deputies to yell "Stop fighting!" or "Stop resisting!" to an

7 inmate who is neither fighting nor resisting. This practice is an effort to fabricate a

8 reason to blame the inmates for the attacks.

9

a.

10

51. On September 24,2011, Mr. A was lying down on the floor of

11 his pod in Twin Towers suffering from a migraine headache and vertigo. When

12 Mr. A asked Deputy Alatorre for his prescribed migraine medication, Deputy

13 Alatorre kicked a book at him and left the module, ignoring his request for the

14 medication.

15

52. When Deputy Alatorre returned later with Deputy Ewell,

16 Deputy Alatorre grabbed Mr. A by the shirt and tried to pull him off the floor. 17 Mr. A lost his balance and hit his chin on the floor. The two deputies dragged

18 Mr. A to his cell, forced him against the wall, and twisted his right arm so hard that

19 he yelled out in pain. Deputy Alatorre pulled down Mr. A's pants below the

20 buttocks and verbally taunted him, while Deputy Ewell sat on Mr. A's legs right 21 below IDS exposed buttocks. Deputy Alatorre pushed Mr. A' s face against the wall,

22 hitting his forehead, and then placed Mr. A in a stress position for several minutes 23 by pushing IDS knee or boot into Mr. A's back. Although Mr. A was still suffering

24 from the migraine and vertigo, in addition to an injured back and an arm that felt

25 like it was broken, the deputies waved off medical staff from helping Mr. A.
26

27 40 Due to the ongoing risk of violent retaliation against inmates from deputies in the Sheriffs Departmenththe identities of inmates currently housed in the Jails have
28 been protected -- wit the exception ofthe named Plaintiffs.

-19-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

53. One day later, Mr. A was given twenty-five days in disciplinary

2 segregation as a result of the incident. Mr. A was 48 years old at the time of the

3 beating.

4

b. Macario Garcia

5

54. In July 2011, when Macario Garcia was housed in Men's

6 Central Jail, Deputy Chavez came to his cell and told him to get up because he had

7 an appointment with an eye doctor. Deputy Chavez handcuffed him from behind

8 and then escOited Mr. Garcia out of his cell. Deputy Wiener was standing inside

9 the gated deputy's control booth next to the cell door controls.

10

55 . Mr. Garcia is blind in one eye as a result of a previous beating

11 by deputies. He is 42 years old, and of very slight build: he is 6'2" and weighs 165

12 pounds. At approximately 6'2" and 275 pounds, Deputy Chavez is of massive

13 build and outweighs Mr. Garcia by more than 100 pounds. Deputy Weiner weighs

14 approximately 220 pounds.

15

56. Deputy Weiner said to Mr. Garcia, "Oh, it's you, you piece of

16 shit, punk." Evidently referring to an incident two weeks earlier in which he had

17 strip-searched Mr. Garcia, Deputy Weiner said, "Shut the fuck up, punk. You ain't

18 nothing but a coward bitch. You had your chance to fight me but you didn't."

19 Deputy Chavez said, "You're not going to go to your doctor's appointment. ... Get

20 against the wall." Mr. Garcia complied and faced the wall opposite the deputy's

21 control booth. Deputies Chavez and Weiner attacked him, punching him several

22 times until he fell to the ground from the blows. After Mr. Garcia fell, Deputies

23 Chavez and Weiner punched and kicked his head, face, body and legs, and beat his

24 body and torso with their flashlights. The deputies also pulled his hair and

25 slammed his head on the ground. The beating continued for approximately five

26 minutes. Mr. Garcia heard Deputy Weiner call out radio code "415," meaning an

27 officer is involved in a fight. Mr. Garcia then blacked out.

28

-20-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

57. When Mr. Garcia regained consciousness he heard Deputies

2 Chavez and Weiner yelling, "Stop resisting! Stop pulling away!" Mr. Garcia was

3 still handcuffed and not resisting in any way. He saw several other deputies

4 running toward him. A deputy sprayed Mr. Garcia in the face with pepper spray as

5 Deputies Chavez and Weiner continued to punch and kick him.

6

58. The deputies then tried to pull Mr. Garcia to his feet by his arms,

7 which were handcuffed behind him. Mr. Garcia felt a sharp pain in his collarbone

8 and heard a loud crack. Though he yelled in pain, the deputies continued pulling on

9 his arms and dragged him toward the elevator. Mr. Garcia's face was covered in

10 blood. He was unable to walle so deputies dragged him to the medical clinic.

11 There, the nurses said that he should be taken to the Los Angeles Medical Center

12 because his injuries were so serious.

13

59. While waiting to be transferred to the hospital, Mr. Garcia heard

14 deputies laughing at him. One deputy said, "You didn't get hit. You fell." A

15 sergeant and two deputies interviewed him on video about the incident, and

16 Mr. Garcia reported that Deputies Chavez and Weiner assaulted him.

17

60. At the hospital, medical staff told Mr. Garcia that he had a

18 broken collarbone. He received stitches above both of his eyebrows and had

19 bruises on his face and legs. Mr. Garcia now has dizzy spells and sometimes hears

20 a ringing in his ear. Mr. Garcia cannot raise his right arm more than three to six

21 inches. Less than a week later, two lieutenants and a sergeant took pictures of

22 Mr. Garcia's injuries; however, they did not ask him any questions about the

23 incident. The DA has since filed criminal charges against Mr. Garcia for, among

24 other things, assaulting a deputy.

25

c. Arturo Fernandez

26

61. In July 2011, Arturo Fernandez was returning to his cell when

27 deputies attacked him, slamming him to the ground, shooting pepper spray into his

28 eyes, and repeatedly pummeling his body. While Mr. Fernandez was walking

-21-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 towards his cell, his hands cuffed behind him, Deputy Guerrero ordered him to

2 move more quickly, and then began punching the back of his neck. When

3 Mr. Fernandez responded with an expletive, Deputy Guerrero forced him to the

4 wall, pinning him by his neck. Although Mr. Fernandez did not fight back, Deputy

5 Guerrero yelled, "Stop resisting, motherfucker." Another deputy slammed

6 . Mr. Fernandez to the ground. With his hands cuffed, Mr. Fernandez could not

7 break his fall. More deputies arrived; with pepper spray in his eyes, Mr. Fernandez

8 could not see how many. He felt kicks, punches, and hard blows that seemed to

9 come from flashlights. After picking Mr. Fernandez up, deputies again slammed

10 him to the ground.

11

62. Throughout the attack, Mr. Fernandez, who has asthma, worried

12 that he would lose consciousness. Two eyewitnesses saw him bleeding profusely

l3 and heard him say that he could not breathe. When the attack was over,

14 Mr. Fernandez was sent to the hospital. He had contusions on his head, required

15 stitches on his elbow, suffered hearing loss in one ear, and continues to have

16 headaches.

17

d. Lawrence Davis

18

63. On March 16,2011, Deputies Diaz, Rodriguez, and Owens

19 pepper-sprayed and brutally beat a black inmate, Lawrence Davis, until he was

20 unconscious. The deputies fractured Mr. Davis's jaw and knocked out one of his

21 teeth. One or more of the deputies then carved the letters "MY" into Mr. Davis's

22 scalp. "MY" is the first two letters of the MexicanlHispanic slur "MYATE" used

23 pejoratively for blacks.

24

e. Mr.B

25

64. In March 2011, deputies slammed Mr. B's head into a cement

26 wall, leaving him with a concussion and a gash that took 35 stitches to close. The

27 group of deputies, including Deputies Moorman and Ibarra and Custody Assistant

28 Perez, punched his face and head, and kicked his ribs. They aimed pepper spray

-22-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELlEF

1 into his eyes before shooting taser probes into his back. The confrontation began

2 because deputies thought Mr. B had called them "gay." When Mr. B repeatedly

3 denied the accusation, a deputy yelled to the row of pro per inmates - who serve as

4 their own legal representatives - "y'all pro pers think you can get away with

5 anything. We the 3000 Boys," a reference to the gang-like group of deputies in

6 Men's Central Jail, discussed in Paragraph 8 above. A deputy said to Mr. B, "Baca

7 pays us to take kickboxing classes to whip peoples' asses." The deputy grabbed

8 Mr. B's head, slamming his face into the wall. nIood poured down, pooling on the

9 ground, and he passed out. Deputies handcuffed Mr. B's arms behind his back and

10 repeatedly punched his face and head, while other deputies stood watching.

11

65. When Mr. B regained consciousness, one deputy was sitting on

12 his back, punching his face and head. Another was kicking Mr. B's ribs. Although

13 Mr. B was motionless, the deputies yelled, "Stop resisting." Mr. B pleaded with

14 them to stop. One deputy shot him with pepper spray. Another sank three taser

15 probes into his flesh.

16

66. Two of the deputies who beat Mr. B stood roughly 6 feet tall,

17 and weighed approximately 200 pounds. The custody assistant was slightly shorter

18 and weighed about 180 pounds. Mr. B is 5 feet 7 inches and weighs 135 pounds.

19 A sergeant accused him of assaulting the deputies, but the ambulance technician on

20 the scene pointed out that the deputies showed no signs of injury. Another sergeant

21 returned to the module to take pictures of the scene, but he did not interview any of

22 the imnates who had witnessed the assault.

23

67. Mr. B spent two days in the hospital and four days in the jail's

24 medical unit. After returning to his row, another deputy threatened him, saying:

25 "the ACLU ain't going to be watching me forever."

26

68. Although there were numerous inmates in the law library who

27 were able to see the assault through the library window, no one from LASD

28 bothered to interview any of the eyewitnesses.

-23-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I

f. Gabriel Carillo

2

69. On or about February 26, 2011, at least three deputies, including

3 Deputy Luviano, severely beat Gabriel Carillo, who had come to Men's Central Jail

4 to visit his brother. The deputies repeatedly kicked and punched Mr. Carillo, while

5 he was handcuffed, severely cutting and bruising his face (photos attached hereto as

6 Exhibit A). The deputies also pepper sprayed Mr. Carillo in the face while he was

7 handcuffed and lying on the floor. During the beating one or more deputies

8 repeatedly yelled "Stop resisting! Stop kicking!" even though Mr. Carillo was not

9 resisting or kicking. Subsequently the deputies filed false reports causing the

10 District Attorney to charge Mr. Carillo with battery against a peace officer, resisting

II arrest, and three other counts. On October 14, 2011, the DA dismissed the charges

12 against him.

13

g. Cesar Mancilla

14

70. On or about February 24, 2011, deputies savagely beat Cesar

15 Mancilla at IRC. Mr. Mancilla was in a large holding cell with other inmates, when

16 the deputies ordered him to stand with his head down. Mr. Mancilla obeyed.

17 Suddenly, and without justification or warning, several uniformed personnel

18 attacked Mr. Mancilla, hitting, kicking, and pepper-spraying him. The deputies

19 handcuffed Mr. Mancilla, and continued to beat him. Mr. Mancilla was denied

20 food, water, and medical attention for the remainder of the night.

21

71. On February 25,2011, a doctor examined Mr. Mancilla and

22 determined he had a collapsed lung, two broken ribs, a nasal fracture, four broken

23 teeth (photo attached hereto as Exhibit B), bums on his skin from the pepper spray,

24 and other injuries. Mr. Mancilla was in jail on a non-violent misdemeanor.

25

h. Stephen Teran (Second Incident)

26

72. In February 2011, while Stephen Teran was housed in Men's

27 Central Jail, deputies heard that Mr. Teran's attorney had requested his medical

28 records relating to a use offorce. The deputies beat Mr. Teran, repeatedly punching

-24-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 and kicking his body, neck, and head. Mr. Teran's cheekbone was broken. He had

2 to wear a neck brace, and doctors told him that he may have suffered nerve damage.

3

i. Garry Crumpton

4

73. In January 2011, while inmates in Men's Central Jail were in a

5 line headed to court, Deputy Ortiz shoved Garry Crumpton against the wall.

6 Mr. Crumpton said, "You didn 't have to do me like that." Deputy Ortiz then placed

7 him in a painful chokehold. Even though Mr. Crumpton put his hands in the air in

8 a show of non-resistance, Deputy Ortiz slammed him to the floor, knocking him

9 unconscious. Another deputy instructed all the other inmates in line to face the

10 wall. While Mr. Crumpton lay face-down and motionless on the ground, seven or

11 eight deputies punched and kicked him . He was removed to a caged area in the jail.

12 Deputy Ortiz came by to speak with him about the incident. Though Mr. Crumpton

13 did not agree with the deputy's account, he assented to everything Deputy Ortiz

14 said because he did not want to be assaulted again.

15

J. Michael Cervantes

16

74. In December 2010, Deputy Lyon noticed Mr. Cervantes's gang

17 tattoo and began smacking the back of his head and taunting him. When

18 Mr. Cervantes turned to look at Deputy Lyon, he punched Mr. Cervantes's left

19 cheek, tackled him to the ground, sat on top of him, and punched his face and neck.

20 Approximately eight other deputies rushed to join Deputy Lyon. The deputies

21 bashed Mr. Cervantes's leg with a flashlight until he bled, kicked him in the

22 stomach, and stunned him twice with a tasergun. When the attack was over, the

23 deputies cautioned Mr. Cervantes not to tell the nurses "anything funny." Due to

24 the severity of his injuries, Mr. Cervantes was taken to the hospital and spent one

25 week in the jail's medical ward. He continues to suffer dizzy spells.

26

k. Stephen Teran (First Incident)

27

75. In December 2010, several deputies severely beat Stephen Teran

28 while he was in the IRC.

-25-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

76. While Mr. Teran was being searched, Custody Assistant

2 Martinez repeatedly told him to hurry up. Martinez then grabbed Mr. Teran by the

3 neck, choking him, and dragged him to a cell where he threw Mr. Teran to the

4 ground. Martinez kicked him in the ribs two or three times. Deputy Sims, who was

5 present during the attack, told Mr. Teran, "If you give us any problems we're going

6 to put you in the hospital."

7

77. A few hours later, Mr. Teran was sent back to the processing

8 line. While interviewing Mr. Teran for classification purposes, Deputy Sims

9 dropped Mr. Teran's classification card on the floor next to him and told him to

10 pick it up. When Mr. Teran did not pick up the card, Deputy Sims punched him in

11 the face, Imocking him over. Deputy Sims then threw Mr. Teran to the floor and

12 repeatedly kicked him in the head and torso. Four to six other deputies, including

13 Deputies Miller and Escobado, ran over and joined in the beating, punching,

14 kicking, and striking Mr. Teran with their flashlights. As they were beating

15 Mr. Teran, the deputies yelled, "Stop fighting! Stop resisting!"

16

78. After two or three minutes, the deputies dragged Mr. Teran to a

17 cell and handcuffed him to the leg of a bench, forcing him to kneel on the floor.

18 The deputies kicked Mr. Teran in the back several times. Mr. Teran saw blood

19 pouring offhis head and face, pooling on the ground beneath him. He heard the

20 deputies say they did not want blood on their clothes. The deputies then they put a

21 plastic bag over Mr. Teran's head, making it almost impossible for him to breathe.

22 The deputies laughed as they left the cell.

23

79. The deputies returned about twenty minutes later and told

24 Mr. Teran he would be interviewed on camera. They threatened to press charges if

25 he said anything. Mr. Teran told the interviewer that he had fallen. Later, the

26 deputies again threatened him and warned him not to talk about the incident.

27

28

-26-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTrvE RELIEF

1

I. Rashaad Pilgrim

2

80. In July 2010, deputies in Men's Central Jail targeted Rashaad

3 Pilgrim as he stood in line to receive his medication. The deputies instructed all of

4 the inmates in line to face the wall. Deputy Reza approached Mr. Pilgrim from

5 behind and yelled at him before punching him twice in the face. When Mr. Pilgrim

6 returned to his cell a few minutes later, he called his mother to report what

7 happened. Not long after, Deputies Reza and Milpad ordered the inmates to line up

8 and go to the day room, but instructed Mr. Pilgrim to stay behind and face the wall.

9 One deputy spread his legs, as ifto search him. Instead, the other deputies began to

10 punch Mr. Pilgrim in the face and head. Mr. Pilgrim lost consciousness. When

11 Mr. Pilgrim woke up, he was on the floor and the deputies were still punching him

12 and yelling, "Stop fighting!" A deputy then slammed Mr. Pilgrim' s face into the

13 concrete floor, chipping his teeth. Later, doctors told Mr. Pilgrim he had fractures

14 in his face, blunt head trauma, injury to his right ear, and a chipped tooth.

15

m. Alex Krehbiel

16

81. In July 2010, a deputy approached Alex Krehbiel as he was

17 returning from a visit with his attorney. Mr. Krehbiel had been trying to get back to

18 his housing unit but the door was locked. The deputy ordered Mr. Krehbiel to face

19 the wall and yelled in his ear, "This is my fucking house! Where do you think you

20 are? This is my fucking housel" The deputy then slammed Mr. Krehbiel's forehead

21 against the wall twice. A group of deputies approached, taunting Mr. Krehbiel, and

22 one of them punched him in the face. The deputies pushed Mr. Krehbiel into the

23 laundry room, knocked him to the floor, and punched and kicked his head, ribs, and

24 back. The deputies then pepper sprayed Mr. Krehbiel's eyes and mouth, and

25 slammed his head into the floor. As a result of the incident, Mr. Krehbiel was

26 given twenty-nine days in disciplinary segregation.

27

28

-27 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTJVE RELIEF

1

n. Juan Diego Mares

2

82. In June 2010, deputies beat Juan Diego Mares so violently that

3 he suffered a fractured jaw, and required multiple eye surgeries and eight stitches in

4 his ear. The incident began after deputies conducted a search of all the cells on

5 Mr. Mares's row. Mr. Mares noticed that some of his property was missing,

6 including items he had just purchased from the commissary. After Mr. Mares

7 asked to speak with a sergeant about the missing property, Deputy Carefoot shoved

8 him hard against a wall, slapped his car, punched his face several times, and threw

9 him to the ground. Once Mr. Mares was on the ground, Deputy Carefoot kicked

10 him roughly ten times in the face, jaw, and back of his head, causing a large pool of

11 Mr. Mares's blood to form on the floor. The deputy then kicked Mr. Mares's ear

12 three times, an experience he described as more painful than when he was hit by a

13 car. Following the attack, a senior deputy questioned Mr. Mares about the incident

14 and said to him, "You know you're going [back] to the same module once they're

15 done cleaning you up." Mr. Mares interpreted this as the senior deputy threatening

16 him not to report the incident.

17

o. Santiago Sanchez

18

83. In June 2010 a deputy assaulted Santiago Sanchez following a

19 visit from Mr. Sanchez's girlfriend and mother. The deputy grabbed the back of

20 Mr. Sanchez's shirt and swung him into a steel pole. The deputy proceeded to

21 place Mr. Sanchez into a stress position, twisting both of his arms behind his back

22 so his fmgers were pressed between his shoulder blades. The deputy then slammed

23 Mr. Sanchez's head down on top of the metal counter in the visitation room. The

24 deputy held Mr. Sanchez in that position for a minute or two while verbally

25 harassing him.

26

p. Jimmie Knott

27

84. Tn June 201 0, while waiting in line for his hepatitis shot, Jimmie

28 Knott asked Senior Deputy Sanchez if he could get some new shoes, as his had a

-28-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELI EF

1 split in them. Senior Deputy Sanchez told Mr. Knott to get out of line and to strip

2 down. Mr. Knott complied and stripped to his boxers. Senior Deputy Sanchez then

3 told him to get on his knees, and as Mr. Knott was bending to the floor, Senior

4 Deputy Sanchez hit him in tbe temple, causing his head to bleed. Other deputies

5 then came over and began hitting, kicking and lmeeing him. Mr. Knott curled into

6 a fetal position and waited for the violence to subside. After two or three minutes,

7 the deputies stopped hitting him and took him to medical. On the way to medical,

8 the deputies told him to say that he fell down the stairs. Mr. Knott complied,

9 because he was afraid of being beaten again. Mario Love witnessed the attack and

10 verified Mr. Knott's account. Mr. Love described the deputies involved as being

11 like "a pack of wolves." Later, while Mr. Love was waiting to talk to the ACLU,

12 deputies pulled him aside and interrogated him in a threatening way.

13

q. Joseph Hager

14

85. In June 2010, deputies took Joseph Hager out of his cell and

15 placed him in handcuffs to go to the law library. At the library, a deputy shoved

16 Mr. Hager up against the wall and kicked his ankle so forcefully it bled. The

17 deputy then dragged Mr. Hager, who was still handcuffed, back to the tier, where

18 he slammed Mr. Hager's face .into the edge of a door frame. Mr. Hager blacked

19 out. When Mr. Hager regained consciousness, he was on the ground and Deputies

20 Chavez and Gonzalez were ldcking and punching him in the head and face. Even

21 though Mr. Hager was handcuffed, the deputies repeatedly yelled, "Stop resisting!"

22 When the beat.ing subsided, Deputy Chavez told him, "I tried to ldll you. You are

23 lucky you are still breathing." The beating caused a fracture in Mr. Hager's face, a

24 black eye, swelling in his ears, and bleeding in his mouth. When staff members

25 interviewed Mr. Hager on camera, he said that he had slipped in the shower, out of

26 fear of what the deputies would do to him ifhe revealed that they had beaten him.

27 After the beating, Mr. Hager was sent to disciplinary segregation and told he was

28 being charged with assault on a deputy.

-29-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

r. Matthew Gjersvold

2

86. On May 28, 2010, while housed in Twin Towers, Matthew

3 Gjersvold slept through a deputy's call for a head count because of the sleep

4 medication he was taking. Another inmate woke up Mr. Gjersvold, who is a former

5 police officer, but the deputies noticed that he was late. Deputy Van Du told

6 Mr. Gjersvold to stand facing the stairs, and then forcefully shoved him onto the

7 metal steps. Deputy Van Du then handcuffed Mr. Gjersvold and escorted him back

8 to his cell. At the cell, Deputy Van Du pulled violently on the handcuffs, causing

9 Mr. Gjersvold to fall backwards and break his wrist.

10

s. Luis Bueno

11

87. In May 2010, Luis Bueno was on his way to the church in

12 Men's Central Jail. Deputies told Mr. Bueno to turn around and return to his ceil.

13 As Mr. Bueno was walking back to his cell, a deputy shoved him against the wall

14 and asked him ifhe wanted to get "fucked up." As other deputies ani.ved, the frrst

15 deputy forced Mr. Bueno to spread his legs and put his hands behind his back. The

16 deputy then aimed his mace at Mr. Bueno's face. When Mr. Bueno turned his head

17 to avoid the spray, another deputy punched him in the neck. Three other deputies

18 joined in and began violently punching Mr. Bueno in the head and body.

19 Mr. Bueno was knocked to the floor, where the beating continued. When the

20 beating subsided, deputies took Mr. Bueno to the medical center, where he was told

21 he had a fractured nose, a tom ligament in his ankle, a swollen artery in his brain,

22 and possible rib fractures. Mr. Bueno is now afraid to attend church for fear of

23 encountering the deputies who attacked him.

24

t. Walter Morales

25

88. For about a week in May 2010, deputies in Men's Central Jail

26 beat Walter Morales twice a day with flashlights about his head and body.

27 Mr. Morales believes the deputies beat him because he was arrested for allegedly

28 firing a gun at police officers. A group of deputies came into Mr. Morales's cell

-30-

COMPLA INT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 and punched and hit him with flashlights. Mr. Morales has a scar above his eye as

2 a result. Later, a second shift of deputies beat Mr. Morales while he was restrained

3 in waist chains and handcuffs.

4

u. Michael Holguin

5

89. In October 2009, deputies beat Michael Holguin so severely that

6 he was hospitalized with a broken leg, stitches on his face, and staples in his head.

7 The incident occurred as Mr. Holguin was on his way to the showers. A deputy

8 told him to go back to his cell, preventing him from using the showers.

9 Mr. Holguin asked him why, because he had not received a shower in weeks. The

10 deputy told him to tum around and placed Mr. Holguin in handcuffs . The rest of

11 the beating is a blur to Mr. Holguin; all he remembers is being punched in the face

12 by Deputy Luviano and pepper sprayed. When the beating was over, Deputy Rico

13 said, "That's why you don't say why; just do what you're told." When Mr. Holguin

14 returned from the hospital, he was sent to disciplinary segregation for "attacking a

15 deputy."

16

v. Gordon Grbavac

17

90. In August 2009, deputies in Twin Towers handcuffed Gordon

18 Grbavac, took him into an attorney room, and slammed his head into a thick glass

19 wall more than half a dozen times, leaving blood on the window. When a sergeant

20 entered the room and asked Mr. Grbavac what had happened, he said the deputies

21 had assaulted him. The sergeant said he would be right back. While he was gone

22 one of the deputies who had assaulted Mr. Grbavac threatened him, saying, "Are

23 you fucking kidding me? You motherfucker! You better change your story or we

24 are going to show you what we do to fat asses. You better say you did this to

25 yourself." Mr . Grbavac thought that the deputies might kill him if he disobeyed, so

26 he agreed to tell the sergeant that his injuries were self-inflicted. When the sergeant

27 returned with a video camera to interview Mr. Grbavac, one of the deputies who

28 assaulted him was in the room, and the sergeant did not ask him to .leave. Because

-31-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 of the deputy's threats, Mr. Grbavac altered his story and said he had banged his

2 own head against the window. Mr. Grbavac was released after spending

3 approximately a week in jail, when the charges against him were dismissed.

4

w. Darrell Garrett

5

91. In June 2009, a group of deputies assaulted Darrell Garrett in

6. Men's Central Jail while he was restrained in waist chains. Deputies shoved

7 Mr. Garrett from behind, causing him to tumble down concrete stairs. Deputies

8 then kicked Mr. Garrett in the face and head, while another deputy held him down.

9 As the beating continued, they hit him in the head with a plastic milk crate, ground

10 his face into the concrete floor, and emptied two cans of mace into Mr. Garrett's

11 mouth, ears, nose and eyes. The beating caused Mr. Garrett to bleed profusely and

12 to defecate. Mr. Garrett blacked out as deputies transported him to medical. In the

13 aftermath of the beating, deputies have threatened and taunted Mr. Garrett, saying

14 they are "going to get him."

15

x. Mr.C

16

92. In May 2009 in Men's Central Jail, a deputy told Mr. C to face

17 the wall and said, "Who's the fucking punk now? Put your fucking nose to the

18 wall." The deputy punched him in the temple, causing Mr. C to fall to the floor.

19 After Mr. C received a second blow to the top of his head, he tried to crawl away

20 but was stopped by other deputies. The deputies ripped off Mr. C's pants and shot

21 him with a taseL Just before Mr. C lost consciousness, he looked down and saw

22 blood pooling on the floor. As a result of the beating, Mr. C suffered four fractured

23 vertebrae, a shattered right shoulder, a broken rib, and two severely sprained ankles,

24 and was relegated to a wheelchair. He also received five staples on the top ofthis

25 head and twelve stitches on his face. Since the beating, deputies have routinely

26 threatened Mr. C to prevent him from asking for help or reporting the abuse to

27 someone outside the jail.

28

-32-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

y. Mr.D

2

93. Deputies assaulted Mr. D on a number of different occasions. In

3 2009 in Men's Central Jail, ten to fifteen deputies came into Mr. D's cell and

4 assaulted him for allegedly "disrespecting" one of the other deputies. They dropped

5 Mr. D to the floor and pummeled his head and body with kicks, punches, and blows

6 with their flashlights. Even after the deputies had Mr. D fully restrained on the

7 floor with his hands behind his back, they repeatedly shot him with a taser. One

8 deputy said to Mr. D, "Man, I was trying to kill you." The deputies threatened

9 Mr. D after the attack and told him not to tell anyone what had happened. Mr. D

10 still has scars on his face and head from the beating.

11

C. Numerous Additional Incidents of Deputies Using Force Against

12

Non-Resisting Inmates

13

94. Additional incidents of deputies using force against non-

14 resisting inmates include the following:

15

95. On December 13,2011, Custody Assistant Martinez tasered 52

16 year old inmate Mr. E in Twin Towers, and a number of deputies, punched, and

17 kicked him before they handcuffed him. At the time they used force against him,

18 Mr. E was lying on the ground face down and was not attempting to fight or resist

19 the deputies in any way. Although Mr. E had been in an altercation with another

2(} inmate shortly beforehand, he was not resisting when Custody Assistant Martinez

21 tasered him, or when deputies rushed in and began kicking and punching him.

22 Mr. E was subsequently sent to the hole for 18 days without a disciplinary hearing;

23 however, deputies presented him with paperwork that stated that he had had a

24 disciplinary hearing.

25

96. On December 6, 2011, Mr. F was punched in the face by a

26 deputy while being escorted out of a courtroom with his hands cuffed behind him.

27 The deputy, who was 6 feet tall and approximately 250 pounds, grabbed the 5'8"

28 and 160 pound Mr. F by the left arm tightly and then punched Mr. F, hitting his left

-33-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

1 eye so hard that it lmocked Mr. F to the floor. With blood dripping from a long

2 gash in his face onto the floor, Mr. F was taken to the hospital in an ambulance.

3 Although a doctor stated that Mr. F needed stitches, two deputies told the doctor

4 that Mr. F was fine and Mr. F left the hospital without the stitches. A sergeant

5 video recorded Mr. F's injuries when he initially boarded the ambulance, and later

6 interviewed him on camera about the beating. The sergeant infonned Mr. F that he

7 could file a lawsuit, but that it would be a "waste oftime." Mr. F still has difficulty

8 seeing out of his left eye.

9

97. In August 2011, deputies grabbed Anthony Brown, then 52

10 years old, by his windpipe, slammed him to the ground, and repeatedly punched

11 and kicked him all over his body, including in his teeth. Deputies also shot pepper

12 spray into Mr. Brown's face. The deputies repeatedly yelled "Quit resisting" at the

13 non-resisting Mr. Brown.

14

98. On July 12,2011, a deputy in Twin Towers slammed Charles

15 Celestine against a wall while searching his cell. The impact caused

16 Mr. Celestine's prosthetic eye to pop out.

17

99. On June 25, 2011, a deputy in Men's Central Jail punched Mr.

18 G, a 57 year old inmate who uses a wheelchair, in the eye and the mouth.

19

100. On June 20, 2011, Deputy Jimenez caused Clydell Crawford's

20 bad shoulder to dislocate from its socket by shoving his anns upward forcefully

21 while they were handcuffed behind his back. Immediately before, Mr. Crawford

22 had asked Deputy Jimenez to be careful because one of his shoulders had

23 previously dislocated.

24

101. In April 2011, a deputy in Men's Central Jail asked Mr. H why

25 he was in jail before repeatedly punching his head, face, and ribs. Another deputy

26 kicked Mr. H's ribs. The beating lasted 30-45 seconds. Subsequently, one or more

27 deputies cranked open Mr. H's cell, allowing three inmates to come into the cell

28 and assault him.

-34-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

102. In April 2011, a custody assistant kicked, hit, and elbowed

2 Carlos Cacique in Twin Towers.

3

103. In March 2011 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Smith lmocked a

4 tray offood from Alberto Carreras's hands and twisted his arms behind his back.

5 Deputy Johnson then slammed Mr. Carrera's face against a wall. Deputies hit

6 Mr. Carreras on his face, head, and legs, while yelling "Shut up you fucking

7 faggot" at him. Mr. Carreras had a catheter, and the blows to his legs caused

8 trcmendous pain and led him to bleed from his penis.

9

104. In March 2011, a deputy in Twin Towers dug her nails into

10 Anthony Penmik' s skin, leaving marks. Another deputy hit and kicked Mr. Penmik

11 in the legs and buttocks.

12

105. On February 18,2011 , Mr. I witnessed seven or eigbt deputies

13 beating up a non-resisting inmate in Men's Central Jail. During the beating, one

14 deputy was pushing the inmate's neck to the floor with a flashlight, while other

15 deputies were yelling "stop resisting."

16

106. In February 2011 at Twin Towers, Deputy Hernandez forcibly

17 searched Rodney Smith's buttocks with a flashlight, placing the flashligbt half an

18 inch into his rectum. Mr. Smith's rectum later bled and became painful, which he

19 attributed to the flashligbt's being pushed into his rectum. Mr. Smith also

20 witnessed deputies take away another inmate and apparently attack him; that inmate

21 suffered extensive injuries.

22

107. In February 2011, Deputy Walker attacked Mr. J in Men's

23 Central Jail after he woke up late for the morning count, causing a cut that required

24 forty stitches.

25

108. In January 2011, a deputy shoved Mr. K against the wall,

26 roughly twisted his hands and ann, and slammed him to the floor. Once Mr. K was

27 on the floor, several deputies punched and kicked him.

28

-35-

COMPLAfNT FOR fNJU NCTIVE RELIEF

1

109. In January 2011, Christopher Brown witnessed two deputies in

2 Twin Towers punching a non-resisting inmate who fell to the floor, apparently

3 unconscious. The deputies then kneed and punched the motionless inmate in the

4 face and head and repeatedly shot the inmate with a taser.

5

1l0. On December 29,2010 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Gomel

6 tripped Mr. L while he was handcuffed, and then slammed his head against the

7 ground, leaving blood all over the floor. Deputy Gomel then repeatedly punched

8 Mr. L in the head while Deputy Rodriguez pepper sprayed his eyes, triggering his

9 asthma.

10

111. In December 2010, Deputy Vasquez pushed Michael

11 Campbell's injured back and punched his head multiple times while Mr. Campbell

12 had his hands behind his back and his fingers interlaced. While Deputy Vasquez

13 was punching Mr. Campbell, another deputy had him in a chokehold.

14 Mr. Campbell suffered extensive bruising and pain in his head, neck, and back.

15 Mr. Campbell was 60 years old at the time of the beating.

16

112. On November 26,2010, Deputy Pontonantos punched Erik

17 Camacho in the back ofthe head while he was in his wheelchair. Two other

18 deputies also hit Mr. Camacho. Then, after Mr. Camacho's wheelchair collapsed in

19 the midst of the beating, the deputies dragged him along the floor in the collapsed

20 wheelchair, while Deputy Gomez kicked him. Shortly thereafter, Deputy

21 Pontonantos took one of Mr. Camacho's shoes, which had come off as he was

22 being dragged along the floor, slapped him across face with it, and kicked him in

23 the testicles.

24

113. On November 18,2010 in Men's Central Jail, multiple deputies

25 hit, kicked, and kneed Jonathan Dunlap. One deputy then shot pepper spray in

26 Mr. Dunlap's face. Mr. Dunlap required stitches on his eyelid and suffered

27 extensive bTIlising. Mr. Dunlap was later sent to the hole for twenty days for

28 supposedly assaulting a deputy.

-36-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

114. In November 2010, while on an LASD transport bus to court,

2 Deputy Stevenson repeatedly punched and then forcefully pushed Darrell Rauls,

3 causing him to fall.

4

115. In November 2010, deputies in Twin Towers beat Mr. M after

5 he protested Deputy Ochoa's decision to deny him dinner. Deputies Ochoa, Paket

6 and several others beat him so savagely for complaining that he suffered a fractured

7 nose, bruised kidneys and ribs, a two-centimeter gash on his forehead, and a

8 swollen right eye. LASD then had him charged with battery against a peace officer

9 and resisting a peace officer, although he had not committed any battery or offered

10 any resistance.

11

116. In or about November 2010, a deputy in Men's Central Jail

12 grabbed Mr. N's arm and pulled him off his bunk onto the floor. The deputy then

13 stepped on Mr. N's fmgers, causing swelling and bruises.

14

117. In October or November 2010, Steven Moore heard deputies,

15 including Deputy Roberts, beating another inmate in the laundry room near his cell

16 in Men's Central Jail. Moore stated, "I will never forget this incident because the

17 inmate's terror and pain were so obvious in his screams." Shortly thereafter,

18 Mr. Moore saw deputies carrying a seemingly unconscious inmate, who was

19 bleeding from his head, out of the laundry room.

20

118. In August 2010 in Men's Central Jail, when Keith Nichols

21 refused to discuss his legal case with a deputy, the deputy repeatedly kicked him in

22 the lower back and kidneys with his boot-clad foot, causing intense pain. The

23 deputy then punched Mr. Nichols in the head and yanked his leg, causing his Imee

24 to pop out of position.

25

119. In July 2010 in Twin Towers, Custody Assistant Bernadino

26 punched Cedric Smith in the neck and slammed him into the wall. The deputy then

27 kicked Mr. Smith's feet, even though Mr. Smith had just had his toenail surgically

28 removed. This was not Mr. Smith's first beating by deputies. In 2004, deputies

-37 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 brutally attacked Mr. Smith, punching his face and kicking his stomach, causing

2 him to defecate. The 2004 attack left Mr. Smith with a severe stomach hernia and a

3 scar over his eye.

4

120. In April 20 10, in Twin Towers, Deputy Bryant angrily pushed

5 Mr. 0 after he complained to the ACLU about a lack of medical treatment, and

6 Deputy Holland struck Mr. 0 in the back near O's existing wounds.

7

D. Racially Motivated Deputy Violence

8

121. Many deputies have assaulted inmates while taunting them with

9 racial epithets. In August 2011, after choking inmate Mr. P and repeatedly

10 slamming his head and face into a metal bar and a wall in Men's Central Jail,

11 Deputy Valdez yelled, "I hate you motherfucking monkeys. Damn nigger!"

12

122. In July 2011, inmate Mr. Q witnessed a deputy on the 3000 floor

13 in Men's Central Jail grab a non-resisting African-American inmate, kick his legs,

14 and yell, "All you blacks! When you mess with my trustees, this is what's going to

15 happen to you." Numerous deputies then joined the attack, and began kicking,

16 punching, and hitting the inmate with flashlights. After the attack, Mr. Q saw

17 trustees cleaning blood off the floor and wall.

18

123. In June 2011, a deputy in Men's Central Jail said of inmate

19 Michael Jefferson, who is African-American, "This nigger can't fucking listen and

20 face the wall." A deputy then smashed Mr. Jefferson's face into the wall. Shortly

21 thereafter, Deputy Quintana punched Mr. Jefferson in the face while he was

22 escorting him back to his module.

23

124. In October 2009, deputies performing cell searches in Men's

24 Central Jail took Mr. R's commissary items. When he complained, a deputy asked

25 Mr. R, who is African-American, "What's your problem, Monkey?" The deputy

26 told Mr. R to face his cell and forcefully shoved him into the bars of the cell door.

27 Later that day, after ACLU monitors visited Mr. R's row, deputies threatened all of

28 the inmates with a bean bag canister gun that contains pepper spray pellets. A

-38-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 deputy said, "We don't give a fuck about the ACLU. This is our house. They don't

2 fucking live here."

3

125. In July 2009, Deputies Delgado, Aviles, Rivera, Thompson,

4 Ortega, Snyder, and others severely beat inmate Evans Tutt on the 3000 floor in

5 Men's Central Jail, while calling Tutt a "fucking nigger." During the beating, the

6 deputies handcuffed Mr. Tutt, and then tasered him, beat him with flashlights, and

7 kicked him. The deputies broke Mr. Tutt's nose in multiple places, injured his ribs,

8 head, face, knee, and leg, chipped his tooth, and left bruises all over his body. The

9 deputies then wrote false reports that prompted the Los Angeles County District

10 Attorney to file criminal charges against Mr. Tutt for resisting a peace officer. The

11 charges were eventually dismissed. Three of the deputies involved in the incident

12 have been identified as members of the 3000 Boys, and two of them were involved

13 in the 2010 Christmas Brawl at a banquet hall in Montebello, described in

14 paragraph 4l.

15

E. Deputy Violence Against Mentally III Inmates

16

126. In June 2010, Mr. S, who was suicidal, walked out of his cell

17 with a strip of bed linen tied around his neck and threatened to kill himself. Mr. S

18 had repeatedly asked deputies to see the psychiatrist, but they had mocked him and

19 denied him access to mental health care. Custody Assistant Gonzalez shoved Mr. S

20 back into the cell, turned to his cellmate, Gary Sanchez, and ordered Mr. Sanchez to

21 "regulate" Mr. S. Mr. Sanchez underst06d this to mean the deputies wanted him to

22 keep Mr. S in line by beating him.

23

127. In October 2009, while in the IRC, inmate Jonny Johnson saw

24 deputies verbally abusing an elderly man who was visibly mentally ill. The man

25 was unable to follow the deputies' directions. The deputies began to taunt the man

26 and threw a sandwich at him, hitting him in the head. Mr. Johnson came to the

27 man's defense and told the deputies to stop picking on him. A group of deputies

28 then took Mr. Johnson out of the holding cell. One deputy shoved Mr. Johnson's

-39-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 head against the wall, while two others began punching him in the torso, knocking

2 the wind out of him. The deputies then took Mr. Johnson to an area where other

3 inmates were handing out bedding and ordered him to help. The deputies told

4 Mr. Johnson that as he handed out the bedding, he had to say to each inmate, "T'm a

5 faggot and the deputies are the bomb."

6

128. In September 2009 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Navarro

7 stopped Eefrom Jones as he returned from an attorney visit. Mr. Jones is on

8 psychotropic medication duc to a mental illness. Dcputy Navarro pullcd Mr. Jones

9 to the ground and sat on him as he punched him. Other deputies came over and

10 joined in the beating, breaking Mr. Jones's shoulder. The deputies shot Mr. Jones

11 with a taser and repeatedly pepper sprayed him in the face, although he told them

12 he had asthma. Approximately two weeks later, after a lieutenant interviewed

13 Mr. Jones about the incident, Deputy Navarro came to Mr. Jones's cell to escort

14 him to the psychologist. In the hallway, Deputy Navarro ordered Mr. Jones to strip

15 naked and bend over. Deputy Navarro yelled that this was his floor, and he would

16 do whatever he wanted. Deputy Navarro shone his flashlight at Mr. Jones's rear

17 and another deputy put his finger in Mr. Jones's anus, as other deputies looked on

18 and laughed. After these incidents, Mr. Jones reported feeling suicidal.

19

F. Deputy Assaults Against Inmates For Rules Infractions Or

20

Perceived Slights

21

129. Deputies often beat inmates for minor rules infractions or

22 perceived slights. In December 2010, a deputy in Twin Towers savagely beat

23 Derek Griscavage after Mr. Griscavage showed the deputy his middle finger. First,

24 Deputy Jackson kicked Mr. Griscavage and contorted his shoulders in a manner that

25 caused him pain. Deputy Jackson then handcuffed Mr. Griscavage and led him

26 away from the pod. Shortly thereafter an eyewitness saw a deputy push

27 Mr. Griscavage causing him to fall down. Then at least four deputies began to beat

28 him. The deputies knocked Mr. Griscavage unconscious, and he woke up in the

-40-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 hospital with severe lacerations, a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and bruises on his

2 head. Thee days later, deputies moved Mr. Griscavage to the disciplinary

3 segregation unit for alleged "assault on a deputy."

4

130. In February 2010, deputies in the jails' Correctional Treatment

5 Center attacked Devon Mannings, an inmate who suffers from a seizure disorder.

6 Mr. Mannings told the deputy he "didn't have a date since high schoo!." The

7 deputy returned with Deputy Campos and slammed Mr. Marmings to the ground.

8 The deputies threw Mr. Maunings's personal letters, pictures, and legal paperwork

9 into the toilet. One deputy stomped on Mr. Mannings's hand with his boot,

10 . shattering his knuclde. The deputies repeatedly kicked Mr. Mannings's body while

11 yelling, "Stop resisting," even though he was not resisting in any way. The

12 deputies handcuffed Mr. Marmings and continued to kick his body and face. The

13 deputies then shot pepper spray into Mr. Mannings's face and used a taser on him,

14 which caused Mr. Mannings to have a seizure. When Mr. Mannings regained

15 consciousness after the seizure, he saw blood around him on the floor. As a result

16 of the beating, Mr. Maunings suffered extensive bruises and required surgery on the

17 shattered knuckle. He was interviewed on camera and a senior deputy told Mr.

18 Mannings the incident would be investigated. Although Mr. Mannings was

19 supposed to be allowed to present his version of events at his disciplinary hearing,

20 he was not permitted to do so.

21

G. Deputies' Use OfInmates As Pawns To Inflict Violence On Other

22

Inmates

23

131. Deputies regularly pit inmates against other inmates, using them

24 as pawns to carry out acts of violence. Deputies sometimes instigate violence

25 between inmates by allowing inmates from rival gangs to have physical access to

26 each other (for example, by opening up their cell doors from the deputy control

27 booth), or by fomenting discord (for example, by mentioning an inmate's gang

28

-41-

COMPLAINT FOR INmNCTIVE RELIEF

1 afftliation to inmates from a rival gang, or stating in front of other irunates that an

2 inmate is a sex offender).

3

132. In March 2011, four inmates beat and sexually assaulted another

4 inmate after an LASD custody assistant opened the door to the victim's cell. The

5 controls to open cell doors are located inside a locked control booth accessible only

6 to deputies and custody assistants. After the cell door was opened, two irunates

7 went inside and began punching the victim. An inmate witness heard the victim

8 screaming for several minutes. Later that evening, the witness heard an inmate say

9 that the victim was going to be sexually assaulted with a broomstick. The victim's

10 cell door was once again opened and four irunates entered, one of them carrying a

11 broomstick. The witness heard the victim screaming and saw a broomstick handle

12 with blood on it sticking out of the cell. Later, the witness saw the victim being

13 escorted away from the cell by a deputy; there was a large amount of blood on the

14 victim's pants.

15

133. Deputies in Men's Central Jail allowed other inmates to assault

16 Donald Shorts. Mr. Shorts is a former gang member and was frequently the target

17 of assaults from members of his former gang. In June 2010, two inmates who were

18 housed in a different module approached Mr. Shorts's cell. The only way they

19 could have appeared at this cell is if deputies opened the gates. One of the irunates

20 then yelled to the deputies to open Mr. Shorts's cell door. The deputies complied,

21 and the two inmates entered the cell and assaulted Mr. Shorts, beating him with

22 their fists and cutting his face and chest with a shank (a homemade knife). The next

23 day, deputies charged Mr. Shorts with possession of a shank, fighting, and

24 insubordination to staff.

25

134. In March 2011, a deputy marched Jeremiah Wilkerson past

26 members of a rival gang, telling them, "This is a Norteno. If the door's 'racked'

27 [opened] you know what to do." Mr. Wilkerson believed the deputy was trying to

28 make him a target for an attack in retaliation for an earlier altercation.

-42-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

135. Cameron Saul, a fonner inmate who now works as a drug

2 treatment counselor, served as a "house mouse" (a liaison between inmates and

3 deputies) for part of his time in Men's Central Jail, and reported to the deputies

4 about inmates who were causing problems. On several occasions, deputies told

5 Mr. Saul that inmates should "handle the problem," and that Mr. Saul should line

6 up at least two inmates to say that the problem-causing inmate had "slipped in the

7 shower," in case that inmate complained following the attack. Mr. Saul later

8 witnessed other inmates take so-called problem inmates to the back of the module

9 and attack them, without deputies intervening to prevent the attack.

10

136. A deputy placed Mr. T, an inmate who had been in protective

11 custody, in the general population tank, where he was viciously attacked by other

12 inmates. Mr. T suffered contusions on his head, a busted lip, blurry vision, a

13 swollen ear, and severe emotional trauma.

14

137. Michael Topete heard someone yelling, "Help, they're killing

15 me!" while someone else was yelling "Shut the fuck up!" The next morning,

16 Mr. Topete heard other inmates say, "They killed the rapist." In an unrelated

17 incident, deputies placed Mr. Topete, who had previously been in protective

18 custody, in the general population, where he was attacked by other inmates.

19

138. On several occasions, deputies placed Rodolpho Mendoza, who

20 was in protective custody, with inmates from the general population, who attacked

21 him.

22

139. In 2009, Therin McGuire witnessed deputies ordering two

23 inmates to beat up a third inmate in MCJ.

24

H. Even Civilians Have Witnessed Deputy Violence Against Inmates

25

140. Unchecked deputy-on-inmate violence in Men's Central Jail and

26 Twin Towers has become so pervasive and routine in recent years that deputies

27 carry out savage attacks even in the presence of civilian eye witnesses. Thomas

28 Parker, fonner Assistant Special Agent in Charge ofthe FBI's Los Angeles Field

-43-

COMPLAINT FOR INruNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Office noted that the phenomenon of deputies beating inmates in areas visible to

2 civilians suggests that "the culture of deputy violence in the Jails has become so

3 hardened and pervasive that deputies feel emboldened to carry out their attacks

4 even in non-secluded areas."

5

141. In February 2009, Jails Chaplain Paulino Juarez witnessed a

6 beating on the 3000 floor in Men's Central Jail. Chaplain Juarez was visiting

7 inmates as part of his ministry, when he heard the sounds of someone being beaten.

8 When he walked towards the noises, he saw three deputies, including Deputies

9 Ramirez and Aguilar, in a hallway pounding the face and body of an inmate who

10 stood with his back to the wall. The inmate appeared to be handcuffed; he was

11 neither raising his hands to protect himself, nor resisting in any way. The deputies

12 punched the inmate until he collapsed face-first on the ground, at which point they

13 began kicking him in the head and body. Until this point, the inmate had implored

14 the deputies to stop. On the ground, he fell silent. Though the inmate was

15 apparently unconscious, deputies continued to punch and kick him, and yelled,

16 "Stop fighting!"

17

142. A deputy finally noticed that Chaplain Juarez was watching the

18 attack and made signs to the others to stop the beating. But a call had gone out to

19 other deputies to join in the attack, and two more deputies entered the hallway and

20 began to kick the motionless inmate. One deputy stomped on the inmate's back.

21 Those deputies who had noticed Chaplain Juarez motioned to the other deputies to

22 alert them to his presence.

23

143. At the end ofthe beating there was a puddle of blood some two

24 feet in diameter around the inmate's head. Chaplain Juarez was overwhelmed with

25 fear, worried deputies would harm him. Several eyed him in a threatening way.

26 Some said "rat" and "motherfucker" when he passed them in the jail over the next

27 few days.

28

-44-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTJVE RELIEF

1

144. Chaplain Juarez wrote a detailed report of the incident, which he

2 gave to a sergeant and his supervisor at the archdiocese, and he was interviewed by

3 the LASD. Two years passed before he heard anything from the LASD about the

4 beating. In a June 2011 meeting among employees of the archdiocese and

5 personnel from OIR, Chaplain Juarez was told that the case had been resolved

6 intemally, and that news of the beating had never reached SheriffBaca. After the

7 meeting with OIR, a representative of SheriffBaca's office contacted the Catholic

8 chaplains to set up a meeting with the Sheriff.

9

145. In July 2011, Sheriff Baca told Chaplain Juarez that the detailed

10 report Chaplain Juarez had written and delivered to the LASD was not included in

11 the LASD's file on the incident. The file that SheriffBaca read aloud from

12 described Chaplain Juarez as "exaggerating" the details of the beating. The

13 description of the attack in the LASD file from which SheriffBaca read aloud

14 seemed to describe a totally different incident from the one Chaplain Juarez had

15 witnessed: the file said the inmate was schizophrenic and that deputies had to strike

16 him a few times with their fists to get him into his cell. SheriffBaca seemed

17 unconcerned, stating simply that "punches are allowed but kicks are not allowed in

18 my department."

19

146. In February 2011, another Jail Chaplain, Chaplain Doe, was

20 walking towards the chaplain's office on the third floor of Men's Central Jail, when

21 he saw four or five deputies repeatedly kicking an inmate. The inmate lay

22 motionless, face-down on the ground. His hands appeared to be tucked behind his

23 back, where they remained throughout the attack. The inmate pleaded with the

24 deputies to stop, yelling, "Help me!" After the deputies continuously kicked the

25 inmate for between two and three minutes, the deputies ordered Chaplain Doe to

26 leave the scene. Chaplain Doe was afraid that if he tried to stop the beating or even

27 asked the deputies to stop, they would hurt him. Although Chaplain Doe could no

28 longer see the beating at this point, he could still hear the "thumping" sounds ofthe

-45-

COMPLAlNT FORlNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 deputies kicking the inmate, and the inmate's cries for help. Eventually the inmate

2 fell silent but the kicks continued for about another minute. Neither LASD nor the

3 aIR ever questioned Chaplain Doe about th.e incident, even though a sergeant and

4 numerous deputies were aware that he was an eyewitness to the beating.

5

147. On January 24, 2011, Esther Lim, the ACLU Jails Project

6 Coordinator, witnessed the savage beating of an immobile, seemingly unconscious

7 inmate in Twin Towers. At the time, Ms. Lim was meeting with another inmate in

8 the facility's attorney room. When she heard what sounded like a fight in the

9 Staging Area, she looked through the windows dividing the attorney room and the

10 Staging Area and saw the attack in progress. Deputies Ochoa and Hirsch

11 repeatedly punched and kneed an inmate who lay face-down and inert on the floor.

12 The inmate was so still that Ms. Lim thought he looked like "a mannequin that was

13 being used as a punching bag." But the deputies persisted in their attack, with one

14 ofthem shocking the inmate again and again with a taser gun. Although the inmate

15 never moved from his spot on the ground, the deputies repeatedly yelled, "Stop

16 fighting!" and "Stop resisting!"

17

148. Scott Budnick, a civilian volunteer who mentors young inmates,

18 witnessed five deputy-on-inmate beatings at Men's Central Jail over a three-year

19 period.

20

149. In early 2007, Mr. Budnick witnessed an incident in which

21 approximately seven deputies used a taser gun repeatedly on an inmate who was

22 lying on the ground motionless. When Mr. Budnick told a deputy what he had

23 seen, the deputy replied, "Yeah, we fuck these guys up all the time."

24

150. In 2008, while Mr. Budnick waited outside the classroom where

25 he taught inmates, he saw a deputy pull an inmate out of a line, strip search him in

26 full view of numerous people, and then smash his head into the wall with such force

27 that Mr. Budnick heard a loud crack. The inmate had not attacked or threatened the

28 deputy in any way before the attack.

-46-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELJEF

1

151. In December 2008, again while standing outside his classroom,

2 Mr. Budnick saw three deputies stop and strip search an inmate who was walking

3 down the hall. The deputies forcefully twisted the inmate's arm behind his back

4 and shoved him to the grOlmd. The inmate had not attacked or threatened the

5 deputies in any way.

6

152. In or about July 2009, Mr. Budnick saw several deputies taunt

7 an inmate who asked them for directions to the inmate's module. The deputies then

8 twisted the inmate's arm behind his back, grabbed the inmate's head and put it

9 against the wall, and then pushed the inmate's face into the wall.

10

153. In 2009, Mr. Budnick witnessed three deputies kicking and

11 punching an inmate. When the inmate fell down, the deputies continued attacking

12 him while he lay on the floor. The deputies repeatedly yelled "Stop resisting!" -

13 even though Mr. Budnick could see that the inmate was not moving, much less

14 resisting.

15

154. Several chaplains cautioned Mr. Budnick not to report one

16 incident of abuse that he witnessed, telling him that ifhe reported the incident, he

17 would no longer be allowed to volunteer. The chaplains said that they refrained

18 from reporting incidents of abuse out of fear of losing their jobs. Several civilians

19 also said that they were afraid to intervene in the deputy-on-inmate attacks they

20 witnessed, for fear ifthey tried to stop the attacks, deputies would assault them.

21

155. Mr. Budnick did report the July 2009 incident to Sergeant

22 Renfro, who promised to "get into this immediately." Mr. Budnick, however, was

23 never interviewed about what he had observed. He never heard back from the

24 sergeant, or anyone else at the LASD or OIR, about an investigation into his

25 allegations of deputy violence.

26

27

28

-47-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELlEF

1

I. The Pattern Of Deputy-On-Inmate Violence In The Jails Has Been

2

Ongoing For At Least A Dozen Years

3

156. In July 2009, after Phillip Westby got into an argument with

4 another inmate in Twin Towers, deputies pulled him out ofbis cell and slammed

5 his head into the wall. Deputy O'Hardy handcuffed Mr. Westby and then slammed

6 his head into the wall two more times. Deputies O'Hardy and Sandoval then led

7 Mr. Westby into the Outdoor Recreation area where they repeatedly punched him in

S the head, neck, and back, and then threw him to the ground. Mr. Westby worried

9 that his ribs were broken, but did not seek medical help because he feared

10 retaliation from the deputies. It took Mr. Westby's bruises almost two weeks to

11 heal.

12

157. In October 200S, Deputy Cinderelli handcuffed Drequinn

13 Johnson to transport him to a legal visit. Deputy Cinderelli stopped Mr. Johnson in

14 the hallway, near Deputy Grant, who was considered a "rookie" deputy. Deputy

15 Cinderelli said to Deputy Grant, "This is training, this is when you get your first

16 force," meaning his first use offorce incident. Deputy Cinderellithen shoved

17 Mr. Johnson against the wall and began punching him. Mr. Johnson, who was still

IS handcuffed, fell to the ground, and Deputy Grant joined Deputy Cinderelli in

19 punching and kicking him. Two other deputies came over and joined the melee.

20 The deputies shot Mr. Johnson with a taser twice in the arm. After the incident,

21 Mr. Johnson was unable to see out of his left eye for about two weeks. When

22 deputies interviewed Mr. Johnson about the incident, he said he did not remember

23 what had happened, because he was afraid the deputies would hurt him again.

24

ISS. In February 200S, after Peter Johnson, who uses a wheelchair,

25 complained about jail conditions, Deputies Ochoa, Reynoso, and Saldivar pulled

26 him off his bed and kicked and kneed his ribs, back, and neck. The deputies later

27 shot pepper spray into MI. JohnRon's face and caused him to fall out of his

2S wheelchair. The assault occurred in the wheelchair module in Men's Central Jail.

-4S-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

159. On or about December 30, 2007, a deputy repeatedly slammed

2 Robert Powell's head into the wall, scratching and bruising his forehead, and left

3 him outside in the cold. At the time, Mr. Powell was 58 years old.

4

160. In June 2006, a deputy assaulted and raped Frank Mendoza, a

5 gay inmate, in Twin Towers. Earlier in the day, the same deputy was escorting a

6 line of inmates including Mr. Mendoza and said to them "you all walk: like girls."

7 When Mr. Mendoza said to another inmate in the line, "There's a male who's

8 unsure of his masculinity," the deputy grabbed Mr. Mendoza, shoved him against

9 the wall, and threatened him stating, "You better watch it. 1will show you my

10 masculinity. 1 will come get you." Later that day, when the inmates returned to

11 their pod, Mr. Mendoza's cell door was left open. Shortly after the deputy in the

12 tower outside the pod left his post, the deputy who had previously threatened

13 Mr. Mendoza forced him into his cell, tore off his clothes, threw him to the ground,

14 shoved a gag in his mouth and raped him. After the rape was over, Mr. Mendoza

15 lay shivering and naked in his cell until another deputy found him and asked what

16 had happened. After Mr. Mendoza reported that he had been raped, the deputy

17 responded, "I do not see anything wrong with you." No LASD personnel

18 interviewed Mr. Mendoza about the incident or took any forensic evidence to

19 investigate whether he had been raped. Mr. Mendoza had been arrested for public

20 drunkenness and was being held in LA County jail on a warrant for failure to

21 appear that later proved to have been issued in error.

22

161. Mario Rocha is a 31 year old who is now pursuing his B.A. at

23 George Washington University in Washington, D.C. On October 10,2003, he was

24 in jail on a charge that ultimately resulted in a reversed conviction. Mr. Rocha was

25 in a holding cell being processed for entry into the jail, when he observed a man in

26 his late 50's or early 60's, who appeared to be mentally ill, on his hands and knees.

27 Mr. Rocha saw a deputy race over, kick the man in the head, and start punching

28 him. Almost immediately, about four or five other deputies came over and joined

-49-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

1 in the assault; punching, stomping, and kicking the man while he lay on his

2 stomach on the floor, not resisting and not even trying to shield himself from the

3 deputies' blows. The assault left the man bleeding from his face and the top of his

4 head, with one of his eyes swollen shut.

5

J. Victims Of Deputy Abuse Experience Intimidation And

6

Retaliation

7

162. There is a widespread fear among inmates at Men's Central Jail

8 and Twin Towers of reporting deputy misdeeds to the ACLU, or anyone else,

9 because deputies regularly retaliate against those who lodge complaints. When

10 inmates complain about mistreatment, deputies respond with punishment: strip

11 searches, body cavity searches, destructive cell shake-downs, confiscation of their

12 belongings, or solitary confinement. If inmates complain of being beaten, the

13 Sheriffs Department will likely bring false disciplinary charges against them for

14 assault against the deputies who beat them, and in some cases hand them over for

15 criminal prosecution on the bogus charges.

16

163. In March 2011, after Mr. U told a nurse that a deputy had earlier

17 refused to take him to his medical appointment, the deputy said to Mr. U, "I can

18 make it that you slip in the shower next time and need serious medical attention."

19

164. In January 2011, two deputies verbally and physically assaulted

20 Shawn Meyers in an elevator for his interactions with ACLU representatives. The

21 deputies slammed Mr. Meyers, who uses a wheelchair, against the wall, and said,

22 "That's your warning."

23

165. In January 2011, Deputy Carbajal overheard inmate Mani Sadri

24 complain about being threatened by another deputy. Deputy Carbajal warned

25 Mr. Sadri not to complain any more to ACLU, and threatened to have other inmates

26 kill him. Deputy Carbajal said, "Don't complain to anyone if you want to make it

27 out of here alive."

28

-50-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

166. In November and December 2010, in the Twin Towers, deputies

2 repeatedly threatened Mr. V, whose criminal case had received extensive media

3 coverage. On one occasion, a module officer refused to give Mr. V a blanket,

4 saying he did not "give them to murderers." Another deputy told him, "[S]o you're

5 [Mr. V]. I can't wait to get you to my floor." When Mr. V was transferred to

6 Men's Central Jail, Deputies Ibarra and another deputy repeatedly asked him what

7 he was in jail for, and punched his ribs until he answered. They called Mr. V a

8 "piece of shit," told him he would not receive basic necessities such as food, and

9 said they would turn him over "to the Southsiders," which Mr. V understood as a

10 threat to tum him over to the Southsiders gang. Deputy Ibarra told him not to

11 complain about the incident, or the deputy would "go in your cell and beat you up

12 personally."

13

167. In June 2010, after Robert Dragusica spoke with the ACLU

14 about violence inside Men's Central Jail, deputies began threatening and

15 intimidating him. The behavior of the deputies caused Mr. Dragusica to refuse two

16 opportunities to speak with the ACLU again, because he was scared of what the

17 deputies might do. After eventually speaking with the ACLU a second time,

18 deputies sent Mr. Dragusica to disciplinary segregation for a fabricated contraband

19 charge.

20

168. Deputies sent another inmate to beat Emmanuel Benson in

21 May 2009, after he reported that a guard had assaulted him the day before. A

22 deputy opened the door to Mr. Benson's cell in Men's CentralJail and allowed the

23 other inmate to enter. The inmate punched Mr. Benson twice in the face and told

24 him he was sent because Mr. Benson reported the deputy's attack. Mr. Benson did

25 not request medical treatment in fear of further retaliation.

26

169. In March 2009, deputies severely beat Daysuan Rushing in

27 retaliation for his speaking to the ACLU. After Mr. Rushing spoke with an ACLU

28 representative who visited his row, deputies delayed him as he returned from a

- 51"

COMPLAINT FOR lNJUNCTNE RELIEF

1 court appearance. Mr. Rushing, who was restrained in waist chains, was forced up

2 against a wall with his legs spread. Deputy Zuniga slapped the back of his head

3 twice and then kicked Mr. Rushing's leg, causing him to fall to the ground. Deputy

4 Zuniga and another officer began punching and kicking Mr. Rushing, and hit him

5 repeatedly in the face and knees with a flashlight. The deputies then pepper

6 sprayed Mr. Rushing in the face and threw him down a flight of stairs. While

7 Mr. Rushing was laying on the ground bleeding, Deputy Zuniga said, "You fucking

8 whiners, tell this to the ACLU, I dare you." As a result ofthe beating, Mr. Rushing

9 received stitches on both sides of his face.

10

170. Deputies beat Mr. W in Men's Central Jail and he was

11 subsequently refused pain medication that he was supposed to receive, because he

12 had complained to the ACLU.

13

17l. Defendants Sheriff Baca and Chief Burns have long been aware

14 of the Department's practice of retaliating against inmates, including a pattern of

15 arresting the victims of staff beatings and initiating their prosecuti on for assault,

16 without any meaningful internal investigation of the facts surrounding the incident.

17 In 2010, the ACLU filed in Rutherford a motion for a protective order asking that

18 Defendants and their agents be enjoined from retaliating against inmates for

19 speaking with the ACLU. That motion was accompanied by numerous declarations

20 attesting to incidents of retaliation, including retaliation in the form of physical

21 abuse. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have denied that retaliation is a

22 significant problem and have failed to adequately investigate the problem. Instead,

23 they have tolerated and encouraged staff to continue to arrest and request

24 prosecution of inmates beaten in the jails. Their continued acquiescence in this

25 practice manifests deliberate indifference toward the rights of the Plaintiffs and all

26 other inmates in the Jails.

27

172. In a November 2010 declaration, Chief Bums made a

28 categorical statement under oath that "every allegation of retaliation" that the

-52-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 ACLU had brought to LASD's attention that the Department had investigated "has

2 been determined to be without merit. ... [T]he Department takes allegations of

3 retaliation and other deputy misconduct extremely seriously and such claims are

4 always thoroughly investigated.,,41 On information and belief, this statement was

5 false and Chief Burns knew it was false at the time he made it.

6

173. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Undersheriff

7 Tanaka is also aware of this pattern of retaliation.

8

174. In its October 2011 report, the OIR stated that expectations that

9 custody personnel will not engage in retaliation and the use of excessive force is not

10 "consistently reinforced up the chain of command":

11

"[T]he key to preventing questionable force incidents and

12

ensuring the fair treatment of inmates is in the hands of

13

line-level supervisors. If sergeants do not actively engage

14

with those they supervise, deputies and custody assistants

15

too easily can lose sight of the expectations the

16

Department places on them and engage in the type of

17

abusive, retaliatory conduct inmates frequently complain

18

of. The Department has not always staffed the jails

19

sufficiently to provide the necessary level of supervisory

20

involvement, and its expectation of sergeants is not

21

consistently reinforced up the chain of command.42

22

K. Supervisory Officials Have Condoned A Pattern Oflnadeguate

23

Investigations And Cover-Ups

24

175. The LASD brushes aside most inmate reports of violence. The

25 Department's apparent indifference to such complaints gives deputies a sense of

26
41 Decl. of Chief Dennis Burns, Nov. 5, 2010, at ~ 3, filed in Rutherford v. Baca, 27 75.-c;v-04111-DDP, 2006 WL 3065781 (CD. Cal. 2006) (No. 245) (emphasis in
ongmal). 28 42 LOS Angeles County Office of Independent Review, supra note 31, at 10.

-53-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 unchecked autonomy in the way they perform their jobs. Incidents of deputy-on-

2 inmate violence, after nominal or no investigation by LASD, are routinely reported

3 by deputies as an unprovoked inmate-on-deputy assault, and if an inmate complains

4 of being beaten or injured by jail deputies, those complaints are almost universally

5 declared unfounded. Most of these complaints get "resolved" at the lowest levels in

6 the LASD. Proper reporting procedures are routinely ignored.

7

176. Corrections expert Toni V. Bair reviewed the investigative

8 procedures and policies of the Los Angeles County Jails and found them to be

9 "grossly substandard.,,43 For example, during the investigation of Use of Force

10 incidents the supervisor of the attacking deputies often interviews the inmate 11 victim, rather than an independent supervisor.44

12

177. This practice is permitted by LASD policy, even though it is

13 considered unacceptable and unprofessional by corrections experts.

14

178. Moreover, LASD sergeants and lieutenants often permit the very

15 officers accused of assault to be present during the interview of the inmate for the

16 use of force investigation, a tactic that has the purpose and effect of intimidating the

17 inmate and impacting his testimony. See, e.g., the August 2009 incident with

18 inmate Gordon Grbavac, discussed in Paragraph 90 above. Mr. Bair declared that

19 this practice is "unheard of in professionally conducted investigations and

20 interviews," and stated that "It is no wonder that the prisoner frequently ... alters

21 his story so as not to implicate the officer(s) involved in the incident.,,45

22

179. Even though pennitting a deputy who was involved in a force

23 incident with an inmate to be present during the interview of the inmate is grossly

24 unprofessional, LASD policy did not forbid this practice until the ACLU's 2011

25

26 43Dec!. of Toni V. Bair, Sept. 27, 2011, at 3]. fiJed in Rutherford v. Baca, 7S-cv-
27 04111-DDP, 2006 WL 3065781 (C.D. Cal. L006) (No. 294-13). 44 Id. ~ 12.
28 45IQ. ~ 16.

-54-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 report revealed how frequently involved deputies were present during inmate

2 interviews.

3

180. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that according to an

4 internal LASD memorandum, depllties were "were crafting narratives 'dramatized

5 to justify' force and delaying using weapons such as pepper spray that could end

6 fights 'to dispense appropriate jailhouse justice. ",46

7

181. In 2011, a correctional expert in an inmate's excessive force

8 case against Sheriff Baca noted both false reports by deputies and the complete

9 absence of an after-the-fact review of a serial cell extraction in Men's Central Jail, lOin which deputies injured a number of inmates.47 The report stated, among other

11 things, that with respect to the deputies' documentation of the use of force, "some

12 crucial reports are missing, others are substantially incomplete and still other

13 reports are inaccurate or false."48 In addition, the report stated: "One ofthe most

14 disturbing aspects of this incident is that there was apparently not so much as a

15 cursory review ofthe situation, let alone a serious investigation" by supervisors of

16 what led to the disturbance on the cell block and the response that culminated in the

17 serial cell extractions"9

18

182. In its 2011 report, the OIR stated "too often we have found" that

19 "the investigations of force incidents that result in less serious or no apparent

20 injuries to the inmate" are "lackluster, sometimes slanted, and insufficiently

21 thorough. ,,50

22

23

24 46 Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonard,SheriffBaca Was Warned about Jail Deputies

Conduct, Retiree Says, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 2011, available at

25 http://artic1es.latimes.coml20 1I/dec/01l10callla-me-jail-commander-2011120 1-1

{hereinafter SheriffBaca Was Warned]. 26 7Expert Report of Jef£tey Schwartz, Feb. 8, 20 II, fLIed in Ramirez v. Baca, CV08-

2813-DSF (C.D. Cal.) (No. 118).

27

48
49

rrad..

at at

15. 20.

28 50 Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, supra note 31, at 4.

-55-

COMPLAINT FOR INTIJNCTIVE RELIEF

1

183. Former FBI Executive Thomas Parker concluded that there are

2 "systemic institutional actions to cover Dup" the longstanding pattern of unchecked

3 deputy-on-inmate violence at the jails.

4

184. The institutional cover-ups often take the form of filing criminal

5 charges against inmate victims of deputy violence. The odds are low of an inmate

6 winning an acquittal against the sworn testimony of deputy witnesses. A criminal

7 conviction of the inmate for his "assault" on the deputy - in reality, the deputy's

8 assault on the imnate - results in a complete immunization of the deputy assailants

9 and the Department for from civil liability for the assault.

10

185. In January 2011, James Parker, an inmate whom ACLU Jails

11 Project Coordinator Esther Lim witnessed being brutally beaten and tasered by

12 Deputies Ochoa and Hirsch, was subsequently charged with battery against a peace

l3 officer and resisting a peace officer. For additional examples of trumped-up

14 charges filed against victims of deputy abuse, see, e.g., Paragraphs 54 - 60

15 (Macario Garcia), 115 (Mr. M), and 125 (Evan Tutt) above.

16

186. The Department has even charged visitors to the Jails in this

17 fashion. As discussed in Paragraph 69, Gabriel Carillo was assaulted by deputies

18 while visiting his brother in Men's Central Jail in February 2011. In April, 2001,

19 he was charged with resisting and officer and battery.51 The District Attorney later

20 dismissed the charges against him after the ACLU issued its 2011 Annual Report

21 and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the FBI was investigating deputy-on-

22 inmate abuse in the jails.

23

187. In contrast, LASD frequently chooses not to forward to the

24 District Attorney information about deputies who have been disciplined or even

25 terminated for using excessive force against inmates. As the Los Angeles Times

26 reported: "In several cases in recent years, deputies who were disciplined or even

27 51 The People v. Gabriel M Carillo, BA381607 (Los Angeles County Superior
28 Court).

-56-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 fired for abusing inmates escaped criminal scrutiny because Sheriff's Department

2 officials chose not to give the evidence to the district attorney's office, opting to

3 handle the cases internally.,,52

4

L. Defendants Have Actual Knowledge Of Deputy Violence And

5

Have Failed To Take Reasonable Measures To Avert It

6

188. Rampant violence at the Jails has resulted from a failure of

7 leadership at the top level of the Department. Such a pervasive, deeply-entrenched,

8 and notorious pattern of excessive force could not have continued unabated over a

9 period of many years without a code of silence on the part of front-line and

10 supervisory staff, combined with management staffs failure to require

11 accountability, and their engaging in outright cover-up.53

12

189. Despite overwhelming evidence of the culture of deputy-on-

13 inmate violence, SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, and Chief Bums have

14 stubbornly refused to acknowledge the problem. They and their spokespeople have

15 publicly taken the position that victims' allegations have been investigated

16 thoroughly and found to be false, and they have attacked the credibility of civilian

17 witnesses to deputy violence. On information and belief, they have routinely

18 dismissed inmates' complaints of staff beatings, even when the deputies allegedly

19 involved had failed to report a use of force and the inmate was seriously injured;

20 when the inmate's injuries were obviously more serious than the staff accounts of

21 their actions would suggest; and when the same deputies reported essentially the

22 same scenarios over and over to describe incidents in which different inmates were

23 injured.

24
52 Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi, D.A. in the Dark on Jail Probes, Los Angeles 25 Times, Dec. 4, 2011, available at http://articles.latimes.comJ2011/dec/04/I0callla-
me-jails-da-201l1205. 26 53 "The only way in which an established pattern of inappropriate use of force can
be maintained is through a combination of a code of silence on the part of front-line 27 and supervisory staff and a managcmcnt staff posturc of lack of accountability or
outriglit cover-up." Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Fixing Use-afForce Problems, American 28 Jails {201 0).

-57-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

190. Sheriff Baca has failed or refused to hold accountable high-

2 ranking supervisors in the face of significant nonfeasance and malfeasance by these

3 supervisors and by the officers they oversee. Both Chief of Custody Operations

4 Rums and Undersheriff Tanaka remain in the positions they held, or have been

5 promoted, despite the epidemic of deputy on inmate abuse in the jails that Sheriff

6 Baca is aware occurred over the past years.

7

191. With rare exception, deputies whose misconduct is brought to

8 the attention of supervisory persounel continue to work with inmates in

9 Department-operatedjails without any substantial disciplinary action being taken

10 against them.

11

192. The fact that physical abuse by officers remains unchecked and

12 unrestrained leads the staff to believe that inmates may be beaten with impunity.

13 SheriffBaca's actions and omissions have created the perception among high-

14 ranking supervisors in the Sheriff's Department that a supervisor who turns a blind

15 eye towards evidence of staff misuse offorce and fails to investigate incidents in

16 which inmates are injured by staffwill suffer no damage to his or her career.

17

193. In September 2011, the release of the ACLU's annual report on

18 the Los Angeles County Jails, detailing some seventy recent instances of extreme

19 deputy violence against inmates and other serious abuse of inmates, and press

20 reports of an FBI probe involving deputy violence in the Jails, set off a media

21 storm. SheriffBaca responded by dismissing any possibility of a systemic problem,

22 and with wildly inconsistent and self-serving statements about his lack of

23 awareness of the problem.

24

194. SheriffBaca first flatly denied the existence of a systemic

25 problem. Nicole Nishida, one of the sheriff's spokespersons, said that the

26 department thoroughly investigated all complaints of abuse that it received and that 27 most were unsubstantiated.54

28 54 Jennifer Medina, Report Details Wide Abuse in Los Angeles Jail System, N.Y.

-58-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

195. As public criticism of Sheriff Baca continued to mount, and new

2 allegations surfaced, the Sheriff acknowledged there were widespread problem but

3 claimed that he had not been aware of its existence. As reported on October 10,

4 2011, Defendant Baca stated: "Weare going to look into this and we welcome

5 anyone to look into it as well." He contended that "[t]he widespread problem can't

6 be defined until we lmow what all the issues are.,,55

7

196. On October 16,2011, the Sheriff told the Los Angeles Times that

8 his cotmnand staff occasionally left him in the dark about the Jails' problems. "I

9 wasn't ignoring the jails. 1just didn't know," Baca said. "People can say, 'What

10 the hell kind of leader is that?' The truth is 1 should've known. So now I do 11 knoW.,,56

12

197. Finally, in early December 2011, it came to light that Sheriff

13 Baca and other senior officials in LASD had in fact lmown of the pattern of

14 widespread deputy violence in the Jails for years. Robert Olmsted, a retired top

15 LASD official with supervisory authority over Men's Central Jail, had repeatedly

16 informed SheriffBaca of such problems. The Los Angeles Times reported on

17 December 1:

18

A top commander in Los Angeles County's jail system

19

said he warned Sheriff Lee Baca and other senior officials

20

last year about deputies using excessive force against

21

inmates but was ignored until the problems grew into a

22

public scandal.

23

In an interview with The Times, Robert Olmsted said he

24 Times, Sept. 28, 2011, available at ht1:p://www.nytimes.coml201l/09128/us/aclu-
suit-details-wide-abuse-in-Ios-angeles-j ail-system.html? r=1&pagewanted=all. 25 55 Jeunifer Medina, Pressed, SheriffAgrees to Jails InquTry N.Y. Times, Oct. 10,
2011, available at http://www.nytllTIes.coml20111l01I l/uslpressed-shenff-agrees26 to-abuse-inquiry.htmI? r=1&scp=1&sq=rnargaret%20winter%20aclu&st=cse.
56 Jack Leonard & Robert Fateruchi, Baca Says He Was out ofTouch with County's
° 27 Jails, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 16, 2011, available at http://www.latimes.com/newsllocallla-me-baca-jails-20 111 16,0,55 70416.stOlY 28 [hereinafter Baca Says He Was out ofTouch].

-59-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

tried to raise red flags about shoddy investigations that

2

allowed deputies to escape scrutiny for using force. He

3

also voiced concern about deputies forming aggressive

4

cliques.

5

He alleged that two top officials rebuffed him, telling him

6

it was impossible to change the deputy culture in the

7

downtown L.A. lockup, an antiquated facility that houses

8

some of the county' s most dangerous inmates.

9

Olmsted, a 32-year department veteran who retired late

10

last year, had commissioned several confidential audits

11

and internal memos that found serious problems with

12

excessive force and inadequate supervision in the jail. He

13

said top sheriffs officials seemed not to take his concerns

14

seriously.

15

16

"It's frustrating knowing that this never, ever needed to

17

have occurred," Olmsted said. "There was a systematic

18

failure ofleadership."

19

20

Olmsted said he twice approached Baca to discuss the

21

problems at Men's Central Jail. The frrst time was at a

22

department barbecue. Baca, he said, told him he would

23

be in touch but never followed up.

24

Months later, Olmsted said, he spoke to the sheriff at a

25

charity food giveaway. The event occurred soon after a

26

group of Men's Central Jail deputies had been caught

27

fighting each other at an off-duty, department holiday

28

party. After the brawl, sheriffs officials said some of the

-60-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

deputies had formed a clique whose members flashed

2

gang-like hand signs.

3

Olmsted said he told the sheriff he wanted to discuss how

4

to improve supervision at the jail to prevent similar

5

problems in the future. Baca, he said, agreed to talk but

6

again never followed through.57

7

198. Commander Olmsted raised the issue of unchecked violence not

8 only with Defendant Baca but also with Defendants Burns and Tanaka:

9

Burns, he said, told him the jail's culture could not be

10

changed. Frustrated, Olmsted said he tookhis concerns in

11

the summer of 2010 to Asst. Sheriff Marvin O.

12

Cavanaugh, who was sympathetic but told him the same

13

thing. He also spoke to then-Asst. Sheriff Paul Tanaka,

14

who as undersheriff now runs the day-to-day operations

15

of the department.58

16

199. Witness LA reported: "In a series of interviews with the LA

17 Justice Report, Olmsted [stated] ... '[T]he real problem is how departmental

18 leadership allowed this jail situation to occur. '" "The problems inside the jail were

19 ignored by the Sheriffs command staff. I went to [Custody Chief Dennis] Burns,

20 [Undersheriff Paul] Tanaka. And I went to Lee Baca. I told them I needed help

21 trying to corral this situation and I was ignored."59

22

200. Commander Olmsted also found, as early as 2009, that reported

23 use of force was not being properly investigated and the official paperwork

24

25 57 SheriffBaca Was Warned, supra note 42.
26 58Id. 59 Matthew Fleischer; Dangerous Jails, Part 2: Ignoring the Warnings, WitnessLA,
27 Dec. 1,2011, availaDle at http://witnessla.com/sheriff-Ieebaca/20ll/adminidangerous-.Jails-part-2-ignoring-the-warnings-by-matt-fleischerl
28 (emphasis omitted).

-61-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 reporting incidents of deputy force at Men's Central Jail- the so-called "use of

2 force packets" - were not being properly prepared:

3

201. Olmsted found that, not only were many force packages not

4 being investigated, the ones that were cleared were often given only cursory

5 examination. Olmsted had one of his lieutenants pul130 force reports at random

6 that were in various stages of oversight. A second lietenant [sic], Mark McCorkle,

7 analyzed them. All were either signed off on, or were on the verge of being

8 cleared. Yet of that group ono, 18 uses offorce were questionable in nature and

9 conceivably fell outside of department policy.60 Commander Olmsted raised the

10 issue of inadequate investigations of use offorce with command staff, including

11 Defendants Burns and Tanaka - all of whom ignored the issue. Olmsted took

12 McCorlde's finding regarding inadequate use offorce investigations up the chain of

13 command to Custody Chief Dennis Burns, Assistant Sheriff in charge of custody, 14 Marvin Cavanaugh, and Paul Tanaka. No action was taken.61

15

202. In response to these latest revelations from Commander

16 Olmsted, SheriffBaca, rather than accepting responsibility, publicly laid the blame

17 on Commander Olmsted for not solving the problem. Commander Olmsted didn't 18 need to "ask permission to solve the problem," Baca said.62 The Los Angeles Times

19 commented, on December 2, 2011 :

20

Never mind that a quasi-military organization like the

21

Sheriffs Department is all about following the chain of

22

command. Or that Baca is trying to have it both ways,

23

suggesting that his command staff failed him by shielding

24

him from the truth, and at the same time blaming Olmsted

25

for not talcing care of the problem on his own.

26

How many times can Baca plead ignorance? This is just

27 60 rd.
61 ill.
28 62 SFieriffBaca Was Warned, supra note 42.

-62-

COMPLAINT FOR INTIJNCTIVE RELIEF

1

the latest in a series of objectionable responses that calls

2

into question whether he is capable of running, let alone

3

refonning, the nation's largest jail systemY

4

203. According to Commander Olmsted, when he took the evidence

5 of inadequate investigations of use of force incidents to Chief Bums, Chief Bums

6 did not deny there was a problem, but told Olmsted that the jail's culture could not

7 be changed.64

8

204. Despite their knowledge ofthe serious problem of improper and

9 excessive use of force in the jails, Defendants have repeatedly failed to take

10 reasonable steps to address the problem.

11

205. Defendants have failed to put in place adequate policies

12 governing use of force. The Department's policies are grossly lacking in specificity

13 about typical force scenarios that are likely to arise in the jails and the proper way

14 for custody perso=el to handle those situations.

15

206. The force policies remain severely inadequate even after the few

16 changes to force policies that the Defendants have implemented since the release of

17 the ACLU's 2011 report.

18

207. The insufficiency ofthe force policies makes it almost

19 impossible to train deputies adequately on the proper use of force.

20

208. Sheriff Baca has failed to install cameras in Twin Towers and

21 Men's Central Jail, even though he has stated as far back as 2005 that he pla=ed to

22 install security cameras in Men's Central Jail.65 In 2011, after the ACLU released

23 its A=ual Report on abuse in the jails, Sheriff Baca admitted that scores of cameras

24

25 63 Editorial, Baca 's Jails Are Baca 's Problem: SheriffLee Baca Should Stop
26 Blaming Others and Take Responsibility for Fixing L.A. County's Jails, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 2, 2011, available at
27 http://articles.latimes.comJ20 11/dec/02/opinionlla-ed-baca-20111202. 64 SheriffBaca Was Warned, supra note 42.
28 65 L.A. Jail Called Deadly, Outdated, supra note 19.

-63-

COMPLAlNT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 that were supposed to have been installed in Men's Central Jail had been sitting in 2 boxes for a year or more. 66

3

209. SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, and Chief Bums have failed

4 to implement a system for identifying, logging, and tracking incidents of use of

5 force by deputies and complaints by inmates of use of force by deputies in the LA

6 County jail.

7

210. For the past five years, the Los Angeles Police Department has

8 had a computerized system, TEEMS II, capable of both tracking use offorce

9 information and providing early warning by identifying officers involved in

10 multiple use of force incidents. Even though LAPD and numerous other law

11 enforcement agencies have such tracking and early warning systems, on

12 information and belief, Defendants either have not designed their Facility

13 Automated Tracking System (F.A.S.T.) or Persounel Performance Index to perform

14 this function for deputies working in the Custody Division, or they have failed to

15 obtain this information from one or both systems, to reduce the number of incidents

16 of excessive or uunecessary use of force in the Jails. Nor have they created a

17 system that tracks inmate complaints about use of force by deputies in the jails.

18

211. Defendant Bums has been and is aware ofthe failures of the

19 Department's tracking systems. When the ACLU sought a court order in 2010

20 requiring that complaints of retaliation, including identifying the officer(s) who are

21 the subject of such allegations be tracked in F.A.S.T., Chief Bums submitted a

22 sworn declaration to the Court stating, "the FAST was not designed properly to

23 track information about deputy misconduct."

24

212. A tracking system of this kind is a basic tool for ensuring that all

25 incidents of use of force are properly reviewed and investigated and are commonly

26 used by large jail systems. The lack of such a system makes it difficult to compile

27

28 66 Baca Says He Was out a/Touch, supra note 52.

-64-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 the essential data to detect and address problematic patterns of use of force as they

2 develop.

3

213. Defendants Baca, Tanaka, and Bums have failed to develop and

4 implement a policy of zero tolerance for deputy violence and abuse of inmates.

5 Then-Assistant Sheriff Tanaka was informed as far back as 2006 by the Captain of

6 Men's Central Jail that there was a problem with improper use of force by deputies

7 at Men's Central Jail. At that time, Captain Clark also expressed concern about

8 deputy gangs in the jail to Tanaka. When Captain Clark proposed to set up a

9 rotation system to attempt to break up the deputy gangs, Tanaka transferred Clark

10 out of Men's Central Jail.

11

214. When Assistant Sheriff Tanaka informed Mr. Olmsted that he

12 was being made the Captain in charge of Men's Central Jail, Tanaka told Olmsted

13 that use of force was a problem in the jail.

14

215. When Sheriff Baca promoted Olmsted to Commander in the

15 Custody Division, then Assistant Sheriff Tanaka arranged for Dan Cruz to become

16 the Captain at MCJ, even though it was well-known within the LASD that Cruz had

17 been transferred out of the Le=ox Station for being about 18 months behind on his

18 paperwork, including his review of use-of-force complaints. Tanaka nonetheless

19 placed him in a facility where he knew there were problems with use of force.

20

216. Although Defendants have been repeatedly warned that use of

21 force by deputies is disproportionately directed at inmates with mental illness,

22 Defendants have failed to implement numerous recommendations on training and

23 other appropriate steps to reduce force against mentally ill inmates made by experts.

24

217. Defendants have abjectly failed to develop policies that address

25 the problem of endemic brutality in the Jails. Policies regarding use of force,

26 investigation ofuse of force, discipline for deputies who have used excessive force

27 or failed to report use of force, supervisors who have mishandled investigations of

28 force, and training of deputies and supervisors all fail to meaningfully address the

-65-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 problem. When allegations of deputy violence arise, they are infrequently

2 investigated, and deputies are rarely disciplined. Defendants have failed to track

3 incidents of violence, even though systems for doing so are readily available and

4 commonly used. In this way, Defendants have fostered a pattern and practice of

5 deputy violence against inmates, which places inmates at a significant, ongoing risk

6 of serious and irreparable injury. Deputies and supervisors alike have come believe

7 that committing abuse (or failing to investigate abuse) will have absolutely no

8 impact on one's career. As a result, physical abuse by deputies continues

9 unchecked. The persistent failure or refusal of Sheriff Baca and the other

10 Defendants to supervise deputies properly or take action to curb the misconduct

11 demonstrates Defendants' deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' right to

12 reasonable protection from harm.

13 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

14

218. Plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin bring this action, pursuant to

15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of all present and

16 future inmates confmed in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles: Men's

17 Central Jail, Twin Towers, and the IRC. Inmates assigned to Men's Central Jail

18 and Twin Towers spend some period oftime in the IRC, and it is commonplace for

19 inmates to be transferred back and forth between Men's Central Jail and Twin

20 Towers. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent meets the requirements of Rule

21 23 as follows:

22

A. NlJMEROSITY

23

219. The class meets the numerosity requirement ofRule 23(a)(l).

24 There are more than 4,000 inmates confined within Men's Central Jail and about

25 2,800 inmates in the Twin Towers at any given time. Between 500 to 1,000 men

26 are processed into or out of the jails through the IRC on any given day. The

27 membership of the class continuously changes, rendering joinder of all members

28

-66-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 impracticable. The inclusion within the class of future inmates in the downtown

2 Jail Complex also makes joinder of all members impracticable.

3

B. COMMONALITY

4

220. The class meets the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

5 Questions of law and fact presented by the named plaintiffs are common to other

6 members of the class. The common contentions that W1i.te the claims of the class

7 include the following:

8

(A) There is an unlawful pattern and practice at the Jails of

9 excessive physical violence used by Sheriff's deputies against inmates.

10

(B) There is an unlawful pattern and practice at the Jails of

11 Sheriff's deputies enlisting and encouraging inmates to carry out savage attacks.

12 against other inmates and promoting inmate-on-inmate violence.

13

(C) There is an unlawful pattern and practice at the Jails of

14 Sheriff's deputies using violence and threats of violence to coerce false statements

15 from inmates, to cover up unlawful violence and to intimidate inmates and thereby

16 prevent inmates from making complaints or otherwise reporting abuse at these

17 facilities.

18

(D) SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Assistant Sheriff

19 Rhambo, and Chief Burns are aware of and deliberately indifferent to the use of

20 excessive force by correctional officers and the enlisting and encouraging of

21 inmates to carry out savage attacks in the Jails. They acquiesce in and condone this

22 conduct by failing to investigate it, failing to take reasonable measures to end the

23 culture of deputy violence that fosters it, failing to pW1i.sh deputies who engage in

24 it, protecting those deputies from criminal prosecution, and rewarding such deputies

25 for their conduct.

26

c. TYPICALITY

27

221. Plaintiffs meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3),

28 since, as alleged below, the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class.

-67-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

222. Plaintiff Alex Rosas, twenty-four years old, is currently housed

2 in Twin TowersY On July 22,2011, Mr. Rosas witnessed a group of deputies,

3 including Defendants Luviano, Guerrerro, Bearer, and Ibarra, severely beating a

4 non-resisting inmate, Arturo Fernandez, who was clad only in boxer shorts and had

5 his hands cuffed behind his back. As the deputies pummeled the handcuffed

6 Fernandez, they shouted that he was resisting, although he was not. The deputies

7 then dragged Fernandez away.

8

223. An hour after Mr. Rosas witnessed the beating, Deputies Ibarra

9 and Luviano came to his cell and warned him, "You better not say anything."

10 Mr. Rosas told the deputies that he had not seen anything. Mr. Rosas was afraid

11 that they would hurt him or arrange for other inmates to attack him.

12

224. A few days later, Deputies Ibarra and Luviano again came to

13 Mr. Rosas's cell and threatened him not to say anything. Terrified that something

14 would happen to him, Mr. Rosas told them again that he had not seen anything.

15

225. On August 9, 2011, Deputies Bearer and Ibarra came to

16 Mr. Rosas's cell and told him to "cuff up," meaning to allow himself to be

17 handcuffed. When Mr. Rosas asked the deputies why he needed to be cuffed, they

18 responded that another inmate had given them a tip that Mr. Rosas had "something"

19 in his cell and that they were "going to toss up your cell." The deputies handcuffed

20 him and sat him outside in the main hallway.

21

226. A few minutes later the deputies moved Mr. Rosas away from

22 the door and out of the sightline of other inmates. They told him they had found a

23 "slicer" - a razor fashioned into a weapon - in his cell. Mr. Rosas told the deputies

24 that he had not altered any razors and that the weapon did not belong to him.

25 Deputy Luviano asked Mr. Rosas, "Why are you lying to my deputies?" Mr. Rosas

26 responded, "I'm not lying, sir." The deputies punched him in the back ofthe head

27 67 LASD has transferred all Men's Central Jail inmates who submitted affidavits to

28

the Court in Rutherford v. Raca to a single unit in the Twin Towers, as of October 5,2011.

-68-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

I four or five times and told Mr. Rosas he would be going to the "hole" - disciplinary

2 solitary confmement - for possessing the slicer.

3

227. Later, deputies came to Mr. Rosas's cell with the disciplinary

4 paperwork. They told Mr. Rosas that ifhe admitted on the form that he had the
5 slicer they would "make trus easier" for rum and would not "add on any charges."

6 He understood tills to mean that ifhe lied and said he possessed a slicer then he

7 would not be taken to disciplinary segregation and the deputies would not falsely

8 charge him with assault on an officer. Mr. Rosas refused to sign the paperwork,

9 and the deputies escorted rum to the hole.

10

228 . Mr. Rosas asked Deputy Reza for a complaint form, but Deputy

II Reza refused to give him one. Mr. Rosas told the deputy he would ask the

12 afternoon sruft deputies for a complaint form and Deputy Reza responded that he

13 would tell the afternoon sruft not to give him the form. When Mr. Rosas asked the

14 afternoon sruft deputies for the complaint form, they too refused to give him a form.

IS

229. Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, 29 years old, is in an inmate in

16 Los Angeles County Jails. He is currently housed in Twin Towers.

17

230. On July 22, 2011, when Mr. Goodwin was housed at Men's

18 Central Jail on the 3000 floor, he saw several deputies running towards a row of

19 cells. He saw deputies leading inmate Arturo Fernandez in handcuffs and then

20 punching rum and slamming him to the ground. Mr. Fernandez fell on his face,

21 with his hands cuffed behind his back. Several deputies, including Deputies

22 Luviano and Ibarra, punched Mr. Fernandez on rus lower back and the sides ofrus

23 torSo. Another deputy kneed Mr. Fernandez in the back, as if pressing the air out of

24 his lungs. Mr. Fernandez yelled that he couldn't breathe. The deputies told rum to

25 "Shut the fuck up!" After the group of deputies punched and kicked Mr. Fernandez

26 countless times, Deputies Ibarra and Luviano escorted Mr. Fernandez out of the

27 housing module.

28

-69-

COMPLAINT FOR INWNCTIVE RELIEF

1

231. On August 10,2011, Deputy Luviano came to Mr. Goodwin's

2 cell and told him to "cuff up." When Mr. Goodwin asked why, Deputy Luviano

3 responded that it was because he could "do whatever the fuck I want" and that

4 Mr. Goodwin "got no rights." Deputy Luviano handcuffed Mr. Goodwin behind

5 his back and escorted him to the hallway.

6

232. In the hallway, Deputy Luviano pushed Mr. Goodwin against

7 the wall and kicked his legs open. Correctional Assistant Flannigan then

8 approached and kicked Mr. Goodwin's ankle and punched his lower back. Deputy

9 Luviano punched Mr. Goodwin in the back ofthe head. Other inmates exclaimed

10 that they saw what Deputy Luviano as doing. _Custody Assistant Flannigan yelled

11 down the row, "You saw that? Whatcha gonna do about it?" Deputy Luviano and

12 Correctional Assistant Wendlent then pulled Mr. Goodwin out of the view of other

13 inmates. Deputy Luviano repeatedly punched Mr. Goodwin on the back of the

14 head, even when other deputies walked into the area.

15

233. Deputy Luviano then moved around Mr. Goodwin and began to

16 punch him repeatedly in the jaw. Mr. Goodwin sank to the ground and tried to roll

17 away from Deputy Luviano. Deputy Luviano continued to punch him in the jaw,

18 and other deputies then joined in the beating.

19

234. The deputies continued to beat Mr. Goodwin until Deputy

20 Ujolla and Sergeant Soto entered the room and escorted him away. Mr. Goodwin

21 told Deputy Bearer and Sergeant Soto that the deputies had beaten him.

22 Mr. Goodwin was later interviewed on camera and repeated his account ofthe

23 incident. During the interview, Mr. Goodwin felt that Sergeant Soto was trying to

24 misstate the facts and put words in his mouth to make it appear that he was lying.

25

235. Deputies took Mr. Goodwin to the medical clinic, where he

26 reported that he was experiencing pain in his jaw and back molars. Medical staff

27 told Mr. Goodwin there was swelling in his head, yet he received no medical

28

-70-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 treatment. Later that night, Mr. Goodwin lost a back molar that had been knocked

2 loose during the attack.

3

236. On August 12,2011, staff charged Mr. Goodwin with

4 possession of contraband, insubordination and causing a disturbance, profanity

5 toward staff and inmates, and refusal to follow orders.

6

D. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION

7

237. Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and thus meet the

8 requirements of Rule 23 (a)(4). Rosas and Goodwin are presently incarcerated

9 within the Jails at issue in this case, they have no conflict of interest with other

10 class members, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

11 They are represented by highly qualified and experienced counsel: The ACLU

12 National Prison Project, the ACLU of Southern California, and Paul Hastings, LLP,

13 as alleged below.

14

238. The ACLU National Prison Project and the ACLU of Southern

15 California already serve as class counsel for all prisoners in the Los Angeles

16 County Jails in Rutherford v. Baca, a case concerning over-crowding in the Jails.

17 The ACLU also serves as court-appointed monitor in that case, and over a period of

18 more than five years has conducted weekly or bi-weekly monitoring tours of Men's

19 Central Jail. Class counsel has sought to obtain discovery on deputy-on-inmate

20 abuse in Rutherford and moved to compel production of that discovery after

21 Defendants refused to turn it over. The Court has never ruled on that motion to

22 compel, which was submitted in December 2010. Class counsel has also informed

23 the Court of its intent to litigate the issue of deputy violence in an evidentiary

24 hearing in Rutherford, but the Court has questioned whether the scope of the

25 Rutherford judgment encompasses that issue. The ACLU is thus uniquely well

26 acquainted with the issues of deputy violence in the Jails and well equipped to

27 litigate those claims. Their work in Rutherford on the issues of deputy violence and

28 overcrowding helped trigger a broad criminal investigation by the FBI and the U.S.

-71-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Attorney's office, and was a key factor in the decision of the County Board of

2 Supervisors in November 2011 to convene a Commission to study the causes of

3 deputy violence in the Jails.

4

239. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Margaret Winter is the Associate

5 Director ofthe National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

6 Since 1973, the ACLU National Prison Project has been the only organization

7 litigating prisoners' rights cases throughout the nation. Attorney Winter has

8 litigated prisoners' rights cases, most ofthem class actions, in federal courts in

9 Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Idaho, Maryland,

10 Delaware, and Vermont, and in the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh

11 Circuit Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. She has argued and won a

12 prisoner's rights case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 2007, Winter has served as

l3 co-lead class counsel for all the inmates in Los Angeles County Jails in

14 Rutherford v. Baca

15

240. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Peter Eliasberg is the Legal Director

16 of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Since its founding in 1923, the

17 ACLU of Southern California has been litigating a broad variety of civil rights

18 cases, including prisoners' rights cases. Attorney Eliasberg has been lead counsel

19 or co-lead counsel in numerous federal civil rights class actions in the Central

20 District of California and has been lead counsel in civil rights matters before the

21 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court,

22 and the United States Supreme Court, and has argued a case before the U.S.

23 Supreme Court. Since 2009, Eliasberg has served as co-lead class counsel for all

24 the inmates in Los Angeles County Jails in Rutherford v. Baca.

25

241. Paul Hastings LLP is an international law firm with 18 offices.

26 Paul Hastings currently has 1,029 attorneys worldwide, including 148 attorneys in

27 the Los Angeles office. Paul Hastings is a global law firm and has sufficient

28 resources to adequately represent the class. Paul Hastings has been recognized

-72-

COMPLA1NT FOR INJUNCT1VE RELIEF

1 widely for its work on pro bono cases. The American Lawyer recently ranked Paul

2 Hastings second in the nation in the American Lawyer Pro Bono Report 0/2011 . In

3 2010, the firm was honored as the Pro Bono Law FilTIl of the Year by Public

4 Counsel, the world's largest pro bono public interest law fiITIl. The Los Angeles

5 office of Paul Hastings was awarded the 2010 Pro Bono Service Award by the

6 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, as the top pro bono law finn in Los Angeles.

7 Paul Hastings has extensive experience in class action litigation, including class

8 action lawsuits involving civil rights. In 2009, Paul Hastings worked with the

9 ACLU of Southern California in a civil rights class action which rectified

10 unconstitutional and unsafe conditions in an immigration detention center. Paul

11 Hastings has also recently argued and won a civil rights case before the U.S.

12 Supreme Court.

13

242. Plaintiffs meet the requirement ofRule 23(b)(2), as Defendants

14 have acted, or omitted to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

15 making injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.

16 VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

17

243. Both of the named Plaintiffs have exhausted available

18 administrative remedies.

19

244. On August 24,2011, Mr. Goodwin filled out an inmate

20 complaint fonn stating, among other things, "On August 24,2011, Deputy Luviano

21 and Correctional Assistant Flannigan and other deputies beat me up." The form

22 was delivered that day to both Watch Commander Limon and Deputy Alvarez at

23 Men's Central Jail.

24

245. No one from LASD has ever provided Mr. Goodwin with a

25 response to the complaint or informed him .that the LASD was seeking an

26 additional 15 days to complete its investigation of the complaint.

27

246. On August 24,2011 Mr. Rosas filled out an inmate complaint

28 form stating, among other things, that on "8/9/2011 Deputy Luviano punched me,"

- 73-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 which was provided to Watch Commander Limon and Deputy Alvarez at Men's

2 Central Jail.

3

247. A few days later Senior Deputy Lauderdale approached

4 Mr. Rosas, showed him the complaint form and asked him what it was about. At

5 no point has any LASD personnel provided Mr. Rosas a response to the complaint

6 or informed him that the LASD was seeking an additional 15 days to complete its

7 investigation ofthe complaint.

8

248. LASD policy provides that the department shall investigate all

9 complaints within 15 days of their being filed unless the department notifies the

10 inmate in writing that it is seeking an additional 15 days to complete the

11 investigation. Both Plaintiffs filed their complaints more than 90 days ago without

12 receiving any response from LASD personnel.

13 VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14

A. Eighth Amendment To The United States Constitution; 42 U.S.c.

15

Section 1983

16

249. By reason of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 248,

17 supra, plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin, and the class they represent, were deprived

18 and continue to be deprived by Defendants of their rights, under the Eighth and

19 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to due process oflaw

20 and to be free from gratuitous and excessive force, threats of gratuitous and

21 excessive force, degrading and sadistic treatment.

22

250. The failures of Defendants Baca, Tanaka, and Burns to take

23 appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Men's Central Jail,

24 the Twin Towers, and the IRC, as described in this Complaint, constitutes

25 deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' basic need for reasonable protection from harm

26 and violates Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,

27 including physical abuse and intimidation, degrading, cruel, and sadistic treatment,

28

-74-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE REUEF

1 and the wanton and needless infliction of pain, as guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the

2 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

3

B. Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution; 42

4

U.S.c. Section 1983

5

251. By reason of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 248,

6 supra, plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin, and the class they represent, were deprived,

7 and continue to be deprived, by Defendants of their right to due process and to be

8 free from punishment without process, in the form of gratuitous and excessive

9 force, threats of gratuitous and excessive force, and degrading, cruel and sadistic

10 treatment, as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

11 Constitution.

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request this Court as follows:

14

l. Declare that the continuing inaction of the supervisory defendants, as

15 described above, violates the rights of the Plaintiff class under the Eighth and

16 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

17

2. Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enJommg

18 Defendants, their successors, agents, servants, employees, and all those in active

19 concert or participation with them, from subjecting inmates in the Jails to physical

20 abuse and the threat of physical abuse;

21

3. Require these Defendants to formulate a remedy, subject to the court's

22 approval and modification, if necessary, to end the pattern of excessive force and

23 physical abuse in those j ails, including:

24

(A) adequate policy on the use offorce;

25

(B) adequate investigation of all use of force incidents and inmate-

26 on-inmate violence, with investigations performed by personnel unconnected to the

27 attack under investigation;

28

-75-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

(C) appropriate training in use of force and prevention of inmate-on-

2 inmate violence;

3

(D) appropriate discipline of staff members found to be involved in

4 improper use of force incidents, improper threats of violence against inmates;

5 incitement of inmate-on-inmate attacks; or failure to report use offorce incidents;

6

(E) appropriate selection and supervision of co=and and unifonned

7 custodial staff.

8

4. Retain jurisdiction in this case until the unlawful conditions, practices,

9 policies, acts, and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and this Court is

10 satisfied that they will not recur;

11

5. Award the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

12 and

13 \\\

14 \\\

15 \\\

16 \\\

17 \\\

18 \\\

19 \\\

20 \\\

21 \\\

22 \\\

23 \\\

24 \\\

25 \\\

26 \\\

27 \\\

28 \\\

-76-

COMPLAINT FOR lNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6. Gran!" such other and further reliefas this Court deems just and proper.

2 DATED: Jauuary l8,2012
3 4
5 6
7
8 9 10 DATED: January 18,2012 I 1 12 13 14

PETER J. EllASBERG MARISOL ORIHUELA ACLU FOUNDATION OF
CALl;'9RWlA-:::l ../

UTI-JERN
- - -"."

Cf7 /

By.,

t- p,

. E JA BERG

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situoted

MmAuRcGBAARLEATBAWNINTER
DAVID M. SHAPIRO NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LlBERTJES UNION FOUNDATION

15

16

Atlorneys fOi laintiffs

17

ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN OIl behalf of themselves and of those similarly

18

situated

19 DATED: January 18,2012 20 21 22

DONNA M. MELBY JOT-IN S. DURRANT JADEH. LEUNG ELlZABETH C. MUELLER PAUL HAS11NGS LLP

23

By: _ __ ",,,,,,,,,..,-,,,,,,.,,-,,,,_ _ _

24

-

DONNA M. MELBY

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin

26

27

28

U !GAL.. US_W ' 101400n 1

-76-

CQMt)LAINT FOR INJUNCJ'JvE RELlUI'

1

6. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

2

3 DATED: January 18,2012 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DATED: January 18,2012 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: January 18,2012 21
22
23 24 25
26
27 28

PETER J. ELIASBERG MARISOL ORIHUELA
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By:_ _ _~==,.....-~~~=~_ __
PETER J. ELIASBERG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated
MARGARET WINTER ERIC BALABAN DAVID M. SHAPIRO NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

By: ------.MAR~~G~ARE~n.T~WIN~~T~EmR-------
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on behalf of themselves and ofthose similarly situated

DONNA M. MELBY JOHN S. DURRANT JADE H. LEUNG
ELIZABETH C. MUELLER PAUL HASTINGS LLP

tl;dtr J1 By

0<7j/ilM ONNAM.M

BY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin

-77 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBITB

 
 1 PAUL B. BEACH, State Bar No. 166265 pbeach@lbaclaw.com
2 JUSTIN W. CLARK, State Bar No. 235477 jclark@lbaclaw.com
3 LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200
4 Glendale, California 91210-1219 Telephone No. (818) 545-1925
5 Facsimile No. (818) 545-1937

6 Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Leroy D. Baca
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN

) Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx)

GOODWIN, on their own behalf and )

12 on behalf of those similarly situated,

) )

PROTECTIVE ORDER

13

)

Plaintiffs,

)

14

)

)

15

vs.

)

)

16

)

LEROY BACA, Sheriff of Los

)

17 Angeles County Jails,

)

)

18

)

Defendant.

)

19

)

)

20

21 /// 22 ///

23 ///

24

25

26

27

28

1
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1

WHEREAS, the parties mutually agree it is in their interests to engage in

2 settlement discussions in this case;

3

WHEREAS Plaintiffs contend that effective settlement discussions require

4 the production of information that one or both of the parties may contend is

5 confidential, privileged, private, secret, or proprietary;

6

WHEREAS The Parties having stipulated and good cause appearing:

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE.

9

A. Plaintiffs.

10

The Plaintiffs in this class action are Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin on

11 behalf of themselves and unnamed class members, defined as “all present and

12 future inmates confined in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, ”

13 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

14

B. Defendant.

15

The Defendant in this action is Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, in his official

16 capacity.

17

C. Statement of Good Cause.

18

Plaintiffs and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to

19 participate in settlement discussions that will involve the production of

20 information that one or both parties contend is confidential because it is

21 privileged, sensitive, proprietary, or private. In order to facilitate the subject

22 document production, each Party may designate any documents produced to the

23 other Party in the course of settlement discussions as “Confidential Information.”

24 If the settlement discussions do not result in a complete settlement of this action,

25 this Order shall not be construed as a waiver of any objection or arguments

26 associated with formal discovery or disclosure in this matter except that this

27 Order shall extend beyond the termination of settlement discussions as set forth

28 below.

2
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1 II. DEFINITIONS.

2

A. Party.

3

Any “Party” to this action, including all of its officers, directors,

4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and legal counsel (and their support

5 staff).

6

B. Confidential Information.

7

“Confidential Information” shall mean information (regardless of how

8 generated, stored, or maintained) which the Parties produce during the course of

9 settlement discussions and designate as subject to this Order.

10

C. Documents.

11

The term “Documents” means all written, recorded, graphic, or

12 electronically stored matter whatsoever produced in connection with settlement

13 discussions.

14

D. Designating Party.

15

Any Party who designates material as Confidential Information.

16

E. Receiving Party.

17

Any Party who receives Confidential Information.

18

F. Expert.

19

A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to

20 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert

21 witness or as a consultant in this action.

22

G. Counsel.

23

For purposes of this Order, “counsel” or “attorney” means counsel of

24 record for the Parties of this action and all their employees, agents, volunteers,

25 interns, and experts.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

3
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1

H. Privilege.

2

For purposes of this Order, “privilege” shall mean the attorney-client

3 privilege, the attorney-work product doctrine, the official information privilege,

4 or any other privilege or doctrine that may apply to Confidential Information.

5 III. SCOPE.

6

The protections conferred by this Stipulated Protective Order cover not

7 only Confidential Information (as defined above), but also any information copied

8 or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations

9 thereof. It also covers testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or

10 counsel to or in court or in other settings in the course of settlement discussions or

11 this litigation with respect to documents that are protected by this Order.

12 IV. DURATION.

13

A. Termination Of Settlement Discussions.

14

Settlement discussions may be terminated at any time by formal

15 confirmation by this Court that the settlement discussions have ended.

16 Confirmation shall require entry of a minute order indicating that current

17 settlement discussions have ended. Either Party may request confirmation from

18 this Court that settlement discussions have ended at any time.

19

B. Effect Of Termination.

20

The Parties shall have 30 calendar days after confirmation that settlement

21 discussions have ended to serve objections to the designation of any specific

22 document (or portion thereof) as Confidential Information. 60 days after the

23 submission of any objection to the designation of any specific document (or

24 portion thereof) as Confidential Information, the Designating Party may move, on

25 a properly noticed motion before the District Judge, for a further protective order

26 to govern the continued use of any document designated as Confidential

27 Information. The protections provided by this Order shall remain in place until

28 the Court rules on any such timely filed motion for a further protective order,

4
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1 except that the Parties may file under seal documents designated as Confidential

2 Information in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for further protective

3 order. All documents designated as Confidential Information to which the

4 Receiving Party does not timely object shall remain protected by this Order until

5 they are returned to counsel for the Designating Party at the conclusion of this

6 matter.

7

C. Information Produced After Settlement Negotiations That a

8

Party Designates as Confidential

9

Even though settlement discussions may terminate, documents produced by

10 either Party after settlement negotiations terminate, which are designated as

11 Confidential Information, will be protected by this Order and remain confidential if

12 no challenge is made to the confidential designation within 30 days of production.

13 Any challenges regarding the designation of documents as Confidential Information

14 shall be resolved as set forth herein in Section IV. B.

15 V. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL

16

INFORMATION.

17

This Protective Order shall apply to all Confidential Information produced by

18 the Parties in the course of settlement discussions and as dictated by this Court

19 following any motion for a further protective order as set forth in Section IV-B.

20 The Confidential Information shall be subject to this Protective Order as follows:

21

A. Storage of Confidential Information.

22

Immediately upon production by the Designating Party, attorneys for the

23 Receiving Party shall personally secure and maintain the Confidential

24 Information in their possession. The Confidential Information shall not be left in

25 an open or unsecured location where unauthorized persons (such as unauthorized

26 employees of counsel, cleaning personnel, etc.) might have access to them.

27 ///

28

5
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1 B. Confidential Information Legend.

2

All material containing Confidential Information shall be stamped

3 “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”.

4

C. Limitation of Use of Confidential Information.

5

Confidential Information produced pursuant to this Order, regardless of the

6 format or manner produced, shall be used only for the express purpose of

7 settlement or litigation of this case, and for no other purpose. Attorneys for the

8 Receiving Party shall not cause or permit disclosure of the contents of the

9 Confidential Information, in any manner, including orally, beyond the disclosure

10 permitted under the terms and conditions of this Order. Any such disclosure shall

11 be construed as a violation of this Order.

12

D. Inadvertent Disclosure.

13

If the Designating Party inadvertently produces any Confidential

14 Information without designating it as such, it may be remedied by: (1) promptly

15 notifying the other parties of the error; and (2) providing a substitute copy of the

16 Confidential Information with a proper legend. In that event, the parties receiving

17 the inadvertently produced undesignated Confidential Information will: (1) return

18 the previously produced Confidential Information and destroy all copies thereof;

19 and (2) if the Party had already disseminated the Confidential Information to any

20 person, the Party will notify all such persons in writing of the need to promptly

21 return such Confidential Information and not to further disseminate it.

22

E. Additional Limitations on the Use of Confidential Information.

23

So long as the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order remain in

24 place (or as required by subsequent order of this Court):

25

 the Confidential Information may be used solely for the settlement or

26

litigation of this action and may not be used for any other purpose of

27

any kind, including for the litigation any other action (related or

28

6
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1

otherwise), except to the extent authorized by subsequent order of this

2

Court;

3

 No Confidential Information or copies thereof, nor any transcript,

4

quotation, paraphrase, summary, or other description containing

5

Confidential Information, shall be reproduced, disseminated, or

6

disclosed to any person or used for any purpose except in accordance

7

with this Stipulation and Order or by further Order of the Court. (For

8

example, the Receiving Party may not use any Confidential Information

9

for any other purpose, including use as background material, or for

10

inclusion in books, magazines, newspapers, press releases, interviews,

11

reports, or other publications.)

12

 the Receiving Party is prohibited from placing any Confidential

13

Information on the internet, may not file Confidential Information with

14

the Court (except as permitted in Section IV-B), and may not use or

15

make Confidential Information available for use in any other litigation

16

(related or otherwise) except by express written permission of the

17

Designating Party.

18

F. Other Persons Authorized to Review Confidential Information.

19

The Parties’ attorneys of record may be permitted to see originals and

20 obtain copies of the Confidential Information covered by this Order. Also,

21 Defendant, including officers, directors, employees, and experts thereof may be

22 permitted to review the Confidential Information. Additionally, paralegals,

23 secretaries, expert witnesses, and other individuals and entities that may be

24 employed or retained by the Receiving Party to assist in attempts to settle this

25 action may be permitted to see originals and obtain copies of the Confidential

26 Information covered by this Order, provided such experts and employees have

27 first executed the written statement set forth in Section V- G below, and comply

28 with the provisions of that section.

7
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1

G. Applicability of Order to Other Persons.

2

Prior to the disclosure of any Confidential Information to any person

3 described above, attorneys for the Receiving Party who seek to use or disclose

4 such Confidential Information shall first provide any such person with a copy of

5 this Order, and shall cause him or her to execute, on a second copy, which

6 counsel shall thereafter promptly serve on the Designating Party the following

7 acknowledgment:

8

“I, _____________________________, acknowledge that I have

9

reviewed and am familiar with the terms of the Stipulated Protective

10

Order Regarding Documents Exchanged During Settlement

11

Discussions entered in this action and hereby agree to comply with

12

and be bound by the terms and conditions of the said Order with

13

respect to the handling, use and disclosure of any Confidential

14

Information.

15

Dated:

__________ /s/_____________________________”

16

This written requirement applies to, but is not limited to, expert witnesses

17 and other individuals and entities that may be employed or retained by the

18 Receiving Party’s counsel to assist in attempts to settle this action. The

19 Receiving Party shall be responsible for maintaining the signed original of each

20 such written statement until the conclusion of these proceedings, including any

21 appeal. In addition, the Receiving Party shall maintain a log of all persons who

22 viewed Confidential Information and shall provide a copy of said log upon the

23 written request of the Designating Party.

24

H. Plaintiffs’/ Inmate / Prisoner Possession of Materials.

25

Neither Plaintiffs nor any current or former inmate of the Los Angeles

26 County jails may have access to or possession of any Confidential Information, or

27 material derived therefrom. This limitation does not prevent showing an

28 individual his or her own medical records. If settlement negotiations terminate

8
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1 as set forth in Section IV.A, the Parties agree to meet and confer regarding

2 possible changes to this provision with respect to documents specific to individual

3 prisoners and Plaintiffs.

4

I. No Waiver of Objections.

5

Nothing in this Stipulation and Order constitutes any decision by the Court

6 concerning discovery disputes or the admission into evidence of any specific

7 document or testimony or liability for payment of any costs of production or

8 reproduction of documents. This Order also does not constitute a waiver by any

9 Party of any right to object to discovery or admission into evidence of any

10 document, record, testimony or other information that is subject to this Order.

11 Nor does Defendant waive any privileges that may or may not apply, including,

12 but not limited to, the investigatory files or official information privileges, see,

13 e.g., Weiner v. FBI, 943 F. 2d 972, 985 (9th Cir. 1991), or Miller v. Pancucci, 141

14 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992), by entering into this Order. In addition, the

15 inadvertent production or disclosure of Confidential Information shall be without

16 prejudice to any claim of privilege, and the Designating Party shall not be held to

17 have waived any rights by such inadvertent production.

18

J. Subpoena for Confidential Information.

19

In the event that the Receiving Party receives a subpoena, discovery

20 request, or other legal process seeking production of Confidential Information,

21 the Receiving Party must give prompt written notice to the Designating Party.

22 The Receiving Party shall inform the person or entity seeking the information of

23 the existence of this Stipulation and Order and shall not produce the Confidential

24 Information absent a court order requiring such production.

25

K. Modification.

26

For good cause, any Party may seek a modification of this Order, first by

27 attempting to obtain the consent of the other parties to such modification, and

28 then, absent consent, by application to this Court.

9
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

1

L. Return of Confidential Information.

2

No more than thirty (30) calendar days after the resolution of this action, the

3 Receiving Party and every other person and/or entity who received originals or

4 copies of the Confidential Information shall return all originals and copies of the

5 Confidential Information, and material derived therefrom, including, but not limited

6 to, all log(s) of persons authorized to review the protected documents and the

7 written statement(s) acknowledging the terms and provisions of this Order pursuant

8 to Paragraph V – G of this Order, to the Designating Party care of:

9

Paul B. Beach, Esq.

10

Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200

11

Glendale, California 91210-1219

12

John S. Durrant, Esq.

13

Paul Hastings LLP

14

515 South Flower St., 25th Floor

15

Los Angeles, California 90071

16

M. Survivability of Order.

17

This Stipulation and Order shall survive the conclusion of this action, and the

18 Court retains jurisdiction to enforce it.

19

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22

23 Dated: February 22, 2013

24

Honorable

United

25

Dean D. Pregerson States District Judge

26

27

28

10
Rosas v Baca – Rosas Proposed Order re DRAFT protective order

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 83 Page ID #:913

1 PETER J. ELIASBERG (SB# 189110)

pelietsperg@aclu-sc. org

·

2 MARISOT; ORlliUELA (SB# 261375)

morihuela@aclu-sc.org

3 ACLU FOlJNDATION OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ·

4 1313 W. 8th Street

Los Angeles CA 90017

5 Phone: (213)977-9500·

Fax: (213) 977-5299

·6

7 DONNA M. MELBY (SB# 86417)

.donnamelby(a),paulhastlngs.com

8 JOHNS. DtJltRANT (SB# 217345)

j ohndurrant(a),paulhastings.com

9 JADE H. Lf:ONG (SB# 279651)

jadeleung_@paul4.a~il!gs.com

10 · ELIZABE!H C. MUELLER (SB#

278283)

.

11 ·bethmueller@paulhastlngs.com

PAUL HASTrNGS LLP

12 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor

Los Angeles~CA 90071-2228 ·

13 Phone: (213 683-6000

Fax: (213) 27-0705 ·

14

MARGARET WINTER (pro hac vice) mw1nter(a),npp-aclu.org ERIC BALABAN (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
ebalaban(a)iipp_-a~lu.org
DAVID :tV!. SHAPIRO (pro hac vice
applic_ation forthcoming)
cfsh~rro@rwp-aclu.org
NATION-'AL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LffiERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St., NW Washingto~ D.C. 20005 Phone: [20L) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931 ·

15 Attorneys for Plamtiffs ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN
16 GOODWIN, on behalf of themselves and ofthose similarly situated
17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF.CALIFORNIA

20

21 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN
GOODWIN on behalf ofthemselves 22 and of those similarly situated,

23

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. cv 12-00428 DDP ( S·tt~)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR.INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION .

24

vs.

25 LEROY BACA, Sheriff ofLos Angeles

County Jails,

· ·

26

Defendant.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR . INJUNCTfVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 2 of 83 Page ID #:914

1 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This action is brought pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth

3 Amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States and to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

4 Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).

5

2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the

6 Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391.

7 II~ STATEMENT OF THE CASE

8.

3. Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin are inmates in the

9 custody of SheriffLeroy Baca in the Los Angeles County Jails. Rosas and

10 Goodwin have been beaten and threatened with violence by deputies ofthe Los

11 Angeles County Sheriffs Department (the "Department" or "LASD"). Mr. Rosas

12 - and Mr. Goodwin have also witnessed deputies beating other inmates. The abuse

13 that Rosas and Goodwin suffered and witnessed is typical of the abuse inflicted by

14 deputies on countless other inmates in the jails, and is part of a pattern and practice

15 of deputy-on-inmate violence that has persisted for many years. In the last few

16 years alone, there have been dozens of documented cases of extreme and unjustified

17 violence by deputies against inmates; Defendant and other high ranking officials at

18 the Department1 are -aware ofthe culture of deputy violence that pervades the Jails

19 but have failed to take reasonable measures to remedy the problem. Plaintiffs

20 charge Sheriff Leroy Baca ("Defendant" or "Sheriff Baca"? with violations of

21 - 1 Plaintiffs named Undersheriff Paul Tanaka ("Tanaka")~Assistant Sheriff Cecil

Rhambo ("13hambo'),, and Chief o.f C:usto~y Operations vermis Bums ("Bums") as _ 22 defendants m the ongmal Complamt m this case. Tanaka, Rhambo, and Bmns are

not named as defendants in this First Amended Complaint because the Court 23 dismissed those defendants and ordered Plaintiffs to submit a new complaint

consistent with the Court's ruling of dismissal. Plaintiffs·hereby incorporate all · 24 ?-llegatio.ns against Tanaka, ~ambo, an~ Bums contained in the. original Complaint

· m tills Frrst Amended Complamt solely m order to preserve the Issue of whether .

25 Tanaka, Iqla}llbo, and Bums are appropriately named parties for appeal. Plaintiffs

are not waivmg, and expressly reserve, any nghts agamst Tanaka, Rhambo, and ·

26 Bums by filing this First Amended Complaint.

·

27 2 Defendant is th-e highest-ranking Los Angeles Counzy official responsible for ·

policies gove~ng tfie conduct of LASD deP.uties and for the safety of the inmates

28 In the custody IIi tbe Los Angeles County Jails.

.

-1-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 3 of 83 Page ID #:915

1- · Plaintiffs' Eighth and F~urteenth Amendment rights to reasonable protection from

·2 violence and excessive force. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves

3 and other current and future inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails, seeking

4 injunctive and declaratory relief.

5

4. Los Angeles County has the largest jail system in the world,

6 with an average daily population of approximately 15,900 inmates. The great

7 majority of the inmates are pre-trial detainees who .are not being held pursuant to a

8 criminal conviction. Large numbers of inmates in the jails have_not committed, and

9 are not charged with, with violent offenses. There are inmates held in the jails on

10 Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds, charges of public intoxication,

11 traffic violations, and warrants for failure to appear on a wide variety of minor

12 offenses.3 Indeed a number of the inmates whose beatings ar.e described in this

13 First Amended Complaint were being detained on non-violent misdemeanors,

14 improper warrants and other minor offenses. See Paragraphs_67-68, 157. Deputy

1S violence against inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails is commonplace, but it is.

16 especially pervasive in three facilities that comprise a single complex on Bauchet

17 Street in downtown Los Angeles: Men's Central Jail, Twin Towers Correctional 18 Facility ("TICF") and the Inmate Rec~ption Center ("IRC") (collectively, "the

19 Jails").

20

5. Irimates in the Jails live in fear of deputy violence. It is typical

21 for deputies to subject unresisting inmates to grossly excessive force by slamming

.

~

22 inmates' heads into walls, punching them in the face with their fists, kicking them

23 with their boots, and shooting them multiple tiilles with their tasers - and for these

24 beatings to result in serious injuries to the inmates, including broken legs, fractured

25 eye sockets, shattered jaws, broken teeth, severe head injuries, nerve damage,

26 3 Los An_geles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Report, at xvi Vera Institute of
Justice, September 2011 ("Vera staff observed arraignrp.ents for people who spent 27 one or two nights in jail for FTA on charges of not paying a $1.50 metro fare. Vera
was told that some judicial officers routinely set bail at $50,000 for one FTA, and - 28 -jail sentences for FTA forjay walking and failure to pay traffic fines.") . .

-2-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 4 of 83 Page ID #:916

1 dislocated-joints, collapsed lungs, and wounds requiring dozens of stitches and

2 ·staples. Deputies sadistically beat inmates with serious mental illness. They have

3 beaten inmates who are already in fragile medical condition, including inmates in

4 wheelch~irs. Deputies have beaten inmates for asking for medical treatment, for

5 the color of their skin, or for no apparent reason at all. Deputies also enlist and

6 encourage other inmates to carry out savage attacks.

7

6. Many of the beatings that.routinely occur in the jails ·are far

8 more severe than the infamous 1991 beating ofRodney King by members of the

9 Los Angeles Police Department. The violence is not the work of a few rogue

10 deputies. Rather, it is a systemic problem that has continued unchecked for

.11 decades.

.12

7. Many deputies belong to gangs inside the Jails. Like members

13 of street gangs, these deputies sport tattoos to signal their gang membership. They

14 beat up inmates to gain prestige among their peers, and "earn their ink" by breaking

15 inmates' bones. They seek to control the Jails, and to a significant degree they do

16 control the areas where they work.

17

8. ·· The "3000 Boys" is one such deputy gang, named for the third

18 floor ofMen's Central Jail where its members work. Members of the 3000 Boys,

19 who sport a "3000" tattoo on the backs of their necks, inflict violence on inmates,

20 foment violence among inmates, and even deploy violence on other deputies who

21 · resist their abusive practices. A similar deputy gang operates on the second floor of

22 Men's Central Jail. On information and belief, members of the "2000 Boys"

23 . designate their gang membership with tattoos of a Roman numeral "II" on their

24 legs. Violent deputy gangs have operated in the LASD at least since the 1980s and

25 perhaps since the early 1970s. The 3000 Boys and 2000 Boys have been operating

26 with the Defendant's knowledge and acquiescence.

27

9. The Defendant's ongoing failure to halt these abuses has

28 communicated to the deputy gangs that they can carry out brutal assaults on inmates

-3-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INTIJNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 5 of 83 Page ID #:917

1 with impunity. In fact, the Defendant's permissiveness has so emboldened the

2 deputy gangs that they have begtm to carry out their brutal assaults on inmates more

3 and more openly, and even in the presence ofcivilian volunteer workers in the Jails.

4 Jail chaplains and the court-appointed jail monitors ofthe American Civil Liberties

5 Union ("ACLU'')"have provided eyewitness accounts of deputies beating non-

6 resisting inmates in the Jails.

7

10. There is a widespread fear among inmates of reporting deputy

8 misdeeds to the ACLU or anyone else, because deputies ·regularly retaliate against

9 those who lodge complaints, with·beatings, strip searches, body cavity searches,

10 destructive cell shake-downs, confiscation of belongings, and trumped-up .

11 disciplinary and criminal charges.

12

11. Defendant and all of the high-ranking officials in the

13 Department are aware - and," in the case of at least three of them, have been aware

14 for years- of the pattern of deputy violence, intimidation, and retaliation against

15 inmates. It has been publicly reported, documented, and condemned on scores of

16 occasions during the past twenty years. Starting in 2006, a captain and a now-

17 retired commander, both in the custody division, have reported to SheriffBaca and

18 other high ranking officials at the Department problems with deputy gangs and

19 deputies using excessive and unnecessary force, but the Defendant did not take

20 appropriate steps to address the problem. SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Chief

21 Burns, and other sup~rvisors in these jails and at the highest levels of the

22 Department have acquiesced in, fostered, and implicitly authorized the abuse by

23 failing to promulgate adequate policies on the use of force, failing to adequately

24 train and supervise deputies in the face ofhistorical and continued·evidence of

25 abuse, failing to conduct meaningful investigations of reports of excessive force,

26 failing to hold guilty deputies accountable, and ignoring evidence that deputies and

27 other Department officials are covering up incidents of excessive force.

28 ·

-4-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 6 of 83 Page ID #:918

1

12. In 1992, the prestigious Kolts Commission-'- formed at the

2 behest of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to conduct a review of the

3 policies, practices, and procedures of the Sheriffs Department - issued a scathing

4 report documenting numerous incidents of excessive force, lax discipline, and the

5 presence of deputy gangs. The Kolts Report resulted in the appointment of Special

6 Counsel to the Board of Supervisors for Oversightofthe Sheriffs Department,

7 - Merrick Bobb. Bobb issued 30 semi-annual reports between 1993 and 2011. The

8 County's Office of Independent Review ("OIR"), headed by Michael Gennaco, has

9 repeatedly reported incidents of serious abuse to SheriffBaca. The ACLU, which

-10 serves as class counsel to all detainees in Los Angeles County Jails in Rutherford v.

11 Baca, No. 75-04111 (C.D. Cal.), and which has been appointed by the District

12· Court in that case to monitor conditions in the Los Angeles County Jails, has

13 submitted multiple reports to SheriffBaca over several years, documenting more

14 than 70 cases of extreme deputy-on-inmate violence.

.

-

15

13. Despite SheriffBaca's actual knowledge ofthis pattern of

16 violence and cover-ups, he has failed over a period of many years to take

17 -reasonable measures to halt the abuses. Even now that the pervasiveness and the

18 extraordinary brutality of the deputy-on-inmate abus.e has become common

19 knowledge through the release of reports by the ACLU, SheriffBaca has left in

20 place his principal subordinates in charge of supervising the Custody Division of

21 the Sheriffs Department, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka and Chief Bums, who have

22 day-to-day responsibility fot ensuring the inmates' safety, and under whose regime

23 this pattern of abuse has flourished.

24

14. The ultimate goal of this lawsuit is to end the longstanding

25 -pattern ofdeputy-on-inmate abuse by requiring the Defendant to put in place a

26 system of accountability, which they have for so long failed to do. That system

27 - must include, at min1mum, adequate policies on the use of force, proper training on

28 the policies, proper supervisi-on of deputies, thorough review ofuse of force

-5-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 7 of 83 Page ID #:919

1 incidents) and appropriate discipline for improper use of force or failure to report its

2 use.

3 ill. PARTIES

· 4

15. Plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin are inmates in the custody of the

5 LASD who were previously housed in Men)s Central Jail and ·are currently housed

6 in Twin Towers. Plaintiffs have been subjected to deputy violence and threats of

7 violence and they have witnessed deputies violently abusing other inmates. They

8 are at continuing risk of being subjected to deputy violence as a result ofthe

9 Defendant)s acts and omissions.

10

16. Defendant Leroy Baca has been the Sheriff of Los Angeles

11 County since 1998. As Sheriff, he is the chief executive officer ofthe LASD. By

12 California law, the Sheriff is answerable for the safekeeping of the inmates in his

13 custody. Cal. Gov)t Code§§ 26605, 26610; Cal. Penal Code§ 4006. SheriffBaca

14 is responsible for the management and control of all Los Angeles County Jails, and

15 for all matters relating to the selection, supervision, promotion, training, and

16 discipline of the uniformed staff) including the supervisory security staff) ofthe

17 County Jails. He is also responsible for the care, .custody) and control of all inmates

18 housed in the County Jails. SheriffBacais regularly provided with reports of

19 applications of force, allegations of unreported and excessive use of force, and

20 other breaches of security in the County Jails. Plaintiffs sue SheriffBaca in his

21 official capacity.

22

17. SheriffBaca is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and

23 injunctive relief. At all times referred to in this First Amended Complaint, the

24 Defendant was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee ofthe

25 · Department, and acting under color of state and muniCipal law.

26

27

28

-6- .

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 8 of 83 Page ID #:920

1 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2

A. There Is A Longstanding, Pervasive, And Notorious Culture,

3

Pattern, And Practice Of Deputv Violence Against Inmates In The

4

Los Angeles County Jails

.5

18. There is a longstanding pattern and practice in the Los Angeles

6 County Jails, and particularly in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, of

7 deputy-on-inmate violence and deputy-instigated inmate-on-inmate abuse.

8 Multiple oversight and monitoring agencies, including the U.S. Department of

9 Justice, the .LASD's OIR, the Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of

10 Supervisors for oversight of the Sheriffs Department, and the ACLU, have issued

11 reports on the use of excessive force and other abuses by the LASD against the

12 inmates in its custody and in many cases made recommendations to address the

13 problem.

14

19. According to Thomas Parker, a former FBI agent and Assistant

15 Special Agent in Charge ofthe Bureau's Los Angeles Field Office, who oversaw

16 the FBI investigation into the force, "There is at least a two-decade history of

17 corruption within the ranks of the LASD.. ..[N]o one at the command level ...

18 · appears to have been held accountable and appropriately punished for failure to

19 properly supervise and manage their subordinate personnel and resources. In my

20 opinion, this has provided the 'seedbed' for continued lax supervision, violence,

21 and corruption Within LASD and the county jails it administers." SheriffBaca and

22 other LASD.officials have "essentially abdicated their responsibilities to provide a

23 safe; secure, and corruption-free incarceration environment within the Los Angeles

24 · County Jail System." The result, Mr. Parker concluded, is a pattern of irimates

25 "suffering severe injuries, maiming, and death, some caused by fellow inmates, but

26 most often at the hands of, or with the acquiescence or assistance of, the deputy

27 sheriffs who are their keepers." Mr. Parker states, "I have never experienced any

28

-7- .

FIRST AMENDED CO~LAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 9 of 83 Page ID #:921

1 facility exhibiting the volume and repetitive patterns of violence, misfeasance, and

2 malfeasance impacting the Los Angeles County Jail system."

3

20. In May 1990, the Los Angeles Times published an investigative

4 report disclosing that excessive force cases represented three-fourths.of all major

5 legal settlements and jury awards over a three-year period; that half ofthe deputies

6 involved.in major cases had been sued in the past for brutality; and that one training

7 officer had been sued ten times in ten years. The newspaper quoted sources

8 familiar with the Department who claimed that a code of silence made deputies

9 reluctant to testify against fellow officers, even those who repeatedly used

10 excessive force. The Department kept no separate records of the deputies who were 11 sued for excessive force or the outcomes ofthe suits.4

12

21. In 1989, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors formed a

13 blue-ribbon commissio.n to conducta review of"the policies, practices and

14 procedures of the Sherif.Ps Department, including recruitment, training, job

15 performance and evaluation, record keeping and management practices, as they

16 relate to allegations of excessive force, thecommunity sensitivity of deputies and

17 the Department's citizen complaint procedure." The Board of Supervisors .

18 appointed the late Judge James G. Kolts ("Kolts") as Special Cotmsel to the Board.

19 Kolts was a former star prosecutor and a highly respected former Los Angeles

20 County Superior Court judge. The team Kolts assembled for this project becatne

21 known as the Kolts Commission. In July 1992, after an extensive investigation, the 22 Kolts Commission issued a scathing 359-page report (the "Kolts Report").5 The 23 Kolts Report detailed a history of excessive use of fore~ and lax discipline withiri.

24

25

26

4 Merrick Bobb, Reportl2 (Feb.

Police Assessment 1999) (citing D~l

Resource Kelley &

Center Victor

M{"PerAinRaC, A")l1le1gOethd

Semiannual Brutality by

Deputies Costs County: Law En orcement: ·Excessive-Force Lawsuits Have Nearly 27 Doubled in Recent Years. Sheri{{Block Stands by Department Policies and His .

Officers, Los Angeles Tinies, May27, 1990, at A1).
28 5 Tames G. Kolts, Kolts Report (July 1992).

-8-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 10 of 83 Page ID #:922

1 the LASD, and concluded that the Department had failed to reform itself. The

2 Commission recommended civilian monitoring of the LASD.6

3

22. In January 1993, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to

4 carry out the recommendations of the Kolts Commission, and the Board retained

5 Special Counsel, Merrick J. Bobb, to monitor LASD's compliance with the Kolts

6 Report and to report to the Board semi-annually regarding such compliance.7 Bobb

7 continues to serve to this day as Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board

8 of Supervisors, and remains the Board of Supervisors' morutor of the LASD and its

9 operations.8

10

23. In his fourth Semiannual Report, dated June 1995, Special

11 Counsel Bobb reported the following:

12

24.- "[W]e continued to find too many cases involving unnecessary

13 force in responses to verbal taunts or passive noncompliance. Most ofthese

14 incidents arose in the jails, where we found a substantial number of instances where

15 deputies appear to over-react to apparently slight provocations, like stepping out of

16 the chow line, by shoving the inmate against the wall or slapping him in the face."

17 Further, the use of "transparently phony pretext[s] ('the suspect stared at me

18 aggressively') to justify .or excuse unnecessary or excessiye force ... is still

19 practiced to an uncomfortable and unacceptable degree in the custody setting.;'9

20

25. "[W]e do not believe that The Department has yet implemented

21 the Kolts recommendations with respect to force investigations."10

22

26. "In its analysis of over 1,000 force-related investigations

23 spanning a five-year period, the Kolts Report concluded that the Department was

24 too lenient ill the way it disciplined officers found to have engaged in excessive

25 force. The situation has not changed very much. ~ .. [C]aptains remain disinclined

26 6 !d. at 4; 345-49 . .

.

7 MerricK Bobb, PARC, 1st Semiannual Report l~Oct. 1993).

27 8 Merrick Bobb, PARC, 30th Semiannual Report SepL 2011 ).

9 Merrick Bobb, PARC, 4th Semiannual Report 1 (June 1995).

28 10 !d. at 19.

·

-9-

F~STAMENDEDCONWLMNT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 11 of 83 Page ID #:923

1 to impose substantial penalties for serious misconduct."11 "[W]e continue to find

2 cases in which the decision to exonerate the officer [in excessive force cases]

3 simply defies explanation, and there are still incidents, almost all in the custody

4 setting, where the use of force is either senseless or overly severe."12

5

27. In a 1997letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General of

6 the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ('.'DOJ") to the then-Los

'

.

7 Angeles County Executive, Joanne Sturges, the DOJ reported that "Inmates who are

8 mentally ill or housed in mental health housing are subject to an unacceptably high

9 risk of physical abuse and other mistreatment at the hands of other inmates and

10 custodial staff. Moreover, the Jail does not adequately investigate allegations of

11 abuse against its inmates."13 The DOJ reported that they had "received numerous

12 reports from inmates and advocates regarding serious physical abuse of inmates in

.

.

13 mental health housing ... including kicks, punches, beatings, and sexual assaults.

14 Although the Jail claims that it has discounted some of these claims·... the

15 investigation of these claims was inadequate and serious questions remain

16 regarding the extent of physical abuse of mentally ill inmates. We agree with

17 Special Counsel Merrick Bobb's finding that in the Jail 'there is callous treatment

18. [of inmates] at times, a problem that LASD management knows about .but has not
..
19 acted sufficiently aggressively to resolve."'14 Furthermore, '.'[t]he Jail's failure to

20 investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations of abuse against mentally ill

21 inmates, and its failure to take appropriate action in response·to incidents of abuse,

· 22 enables the abuse of these inmates to continue."15 The report also stated, "The

23 treatment received by one inmate indicates that excessive use of force and physical

24

11 Id. at 22.
25 12 Id. at 20-21 femphasis added).

13 Letter from sabelle Katz Pinzler, Civil Rights Division, USDOJ, to Joanne 26 Sturges, ~os Angeles County Executiv_e, CRIPA Investigation ofMental Health

Servzces zn the Los Angeles County Jazl17 (Sept. 5,- 19g7).

·

27 14 ld; at 17-18 (citing Merrick Boob, PARC, 6th Semiannual Report 11-13 (Sept.

1996)).

.

28 · 15 Id. at 21.

-10-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA1NT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 12 of 83 Page ID #:924

1 mistreatment ofinmates with mental illnesses may be in part the result of

2 inadequate training."16

3

28. In his tenth Semiannual Report, dated February 1999, Special

4 Counsel Bobb pointed to a long list of recent crises on the custody side ofthe

5 . Department, including "troubling inmate deaths at the hands of custody

6 personnel[,]" "inmate on inmate violence[,]" and "vigilante-like behavior at Twin

7 Towers."17

8

29. On December 19, 2002, the Los Angeles County and the United

9 States entered into a Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Ment~l Health

10 · Services at the Los Angeles County Jail ("MOA").18 Sheriff Baca was one of the

11 signers-of the MOA, which was entered into "to avoid potential litigation

12 concerning the mental health services at the Jail."19 Among the provisions in the

13 MOA were ones addressing training of correctional staff in "professional and

14 humane treatment of mentally ill inmates," and the prevention and investigation of

15 abuse ofmentally ill inmates?0

16

30. In March 2003, the US DOJ sent to County Counsel a

17 compliance letter on the 2002 MOA about treatment ofthe mentally ill. The letter

18 concluded that the Sheriffs Department was not in compliance with the

-19 requirement of the MOA that LASD "provide mandatory orientation and continuing

20 competency-based training for correctional staff in the identification and custodial

21 care ofmeritally ill inmates including, but not necessarily limited to

22

a. interpreting or responding to bizarre or aberrant behaviors,

23

b. recognizing and responding to indications of suicidal thoughts,

24

c. proper suicide observation,

25

16 Id. at 18.

_

-

26 17 Merrick Bobb, supra note 2; at 17.

-

18 Memorandum of Agr~ement Between the United States and Los Angeles County,

27 California Regarding Mental Health Services at the Los Angeles County Jail.

19 Jd.

-

28 20 !d.

-11-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 13 of 83 Page ID #:925

1

d. recognizing common side effects of psychotropic medications,

2

e. professional and humane treatment ofmentally ill inmates, arid

3

.response to mental health crises including suicide intervention

4 and cell extractions."

5

31. · In November 2004, Special Counsel Merrick Bobb presented to

6 SheriffBaca and the Board of SuperVisors a confidential report fmding that "Los

7 Angeles County's largest jail is so outdated, understaffed and riddled with security

8 flaws that it jeopardizes the lives of guards and inmates."21 The report concluded

9 that Men's Central Jail suffers from "lax supervision and a long-standing jail

10 culture that has shortchanged accountability for inmate safety and security."22

11

32. In his nineteenth Semiannual Report, dated February 2005,

12 Special Counsel Merrick Bobb noted:

13

From the Kolts Report onward, there has been a

14

paradoxical cont;radiction between Internal Affairs

15

investigations that exonerated the officer and litigation

16

arising out of the same incident that cost the County ·

17

substantial money in settlement and judgments. Those

18

same disparities continue to exist after 2003.and 2004... .

19

While at times one might find instances in which the

20

County's lawyers have unwisely settled, it is far more

21

common to find cases where the LASD let ·an officer off

22

the hook when a judge or jury would not. We can only

23

say as we have in the past that these disparities "fuel[] the

24

fire of those who would strip the Sheriff of the privilege

25

of investigating and disciplining his own employees."

26

21 Jack Leonard & Richard Wint~n, L.A. Jail Called Deadly_, Outdated, Los Angeles

' 27 Times, Feb. 3, 2005 rhereinafter L.A. Jail Called Deadly, Outdated!.

·

22.Megan Garve)' & Richard Winton, Critics ofJails Voice Alarm, tos Angeles ·

28 Tunes,Feb. 14,2006.

.

·

-12-

FIRST AMENDED CO.MPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 14 of 83 Page ID #:926

1

(citing the Fifteenth Semiannual Report at 73)?3

2

33 .· In June 2008 the ACLU issued a report by Dr. Terry Kupers, an

3 expert on mental illness am.ong incarcerated populations?4 The report was filed in

4 the Rutherford litigation, served on SheriffBaca's counsel, and sent directly to a

5 · number of high-ranking officials in the LASD Custody Division. In his report·

. 6 Dr. ~upers made a number of conclusions including: "[A]t theLos Angeles

7 County Jail the claims by prisoners [of abuse by deputies] are so widespread, and

8 . the reports of abuse so consistent among multiple reporters, that jt seems very likely

9 there is an unacceptably high incidence of custodial abuse. Multiple prisoners have

10 · told me about abuse they have undergone or witnessed, and most say it is

11 disproportionately directed at prisoners with serious mental illness."25 Dr. Kupers

12 also opined that the problem "is made worse by inappropriate un-diagnosing and ·

13 consignment ofprisoners suffering from serious mental illness to general

14 population housing."26 Dr. Kupers further found that "there seems to be very little

15 .mental health training for most other officers, and given the fact that officers work

16 over-time in most as.signments, this means that prisoners with mental illness outside

17 .of Tower 1 are often guarded by officers wjth little or no training in mental

18 health."27 He aJso found "disturbing evidence of custodial abuse ofprisoners with

19 serious mental illness," ari.d "crowding and idleness at every level[] further

· 20 exacerbate the problems."28

21

34. Dr. Kupersalso made numerousTecommendations to address

22 the·serious problems he found with the treatment of mentally ill prisoners including

23 that "[a]ll officers ... be required to undergo intensive training in working with

24 prisoners with mental illness" and that jail officials "halt custodial abuse" by

25 23 Merrick Bobb, PARC, 19th Semiahnua{Report 38 (Feb. 2005).

? 24 Te~ A. Kbl}ers, Report on Mental Health Issues at Los Angeles County Jail

26 Qld~at~ 00 .

·.

.

·

27 . 26 Id.

28 .

27 Id. at 21. 28 Id. at44.

-13-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLArnT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELiEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 15 of 83 Page ID #:927

1 · implementing "zero tolerance from the top~ education for prisoners about their

2 rights and the grievance process, training and support to encourage staffto report

3 abuse by other staff, a confidential complaint system that fosters prisoner trust and

4 action, and prompt and thorough investigation with appropriate consequences for 5 offe~ding staff."29 .

6

35. In April2010, a Los Angeles County Sheriffs deputy, Joshua

7 Sather, who had graduated at the top of his recruit class, resigned after only a Jew

8 weeks on the job, alleging that a supervisor made him beat up a mentally ill jail

9 inmate. .Sather was the sole Honor Recruit in his graduating-class from the

10 academy, and had been -recognized for his leadership and other abilities. As with

11 virtually all rookies, his first assignment was jail duty. On March 22, 2010, Sather

12 was working on the sixth floor mental health ward ofTwin Towers. At some point

13 during Sather's shift, he, his supervisor and other deputies used force on a mentally

14 illinmate. Soon afterward, Sather, crying and distraught, called his uncle, a veteran

15 Sheriff's detective, and told him that he had.participated in an unjustified beating,

16 that shortly before the beating his supervisor said, "We're gohna go in and teach

17 this guy a lesson," and that the attack had been covered up. Sather's uncle 18 confronted the supervisor about making his nephew "beat up 'dings."'30 Sheriff's

19 officials launched an investigation and determined that an.uncooperative inmate.

20 had been subdue_d by force~ but concluded that no misconduct had occurred.

21

36. In May 2010, the ACLU National Prison Project and the ACLU

22 of Southern California submitted to SheriffBaca and to the Rutherford Court the

23 ACLU's "Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail - 2008-

24 2009."31 The report included declarations documenting scores of complaints fr~m.

25

29
30

Jd. at 49. · Robert Faturechi,

L. .4.

County

. D ep_uty

Says

He

Was

Forced to

Beat

Mentally

El

26 "

I31nmMaatrey,

Los Angeles Tiedeman &

TunesiOct. 7, Daniel Bailon,

2011. ACLU

. National

Prison

. Project

&

. .. ACLU. of

27 Southern Calif01nia~ Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail-

2008-2009 (May 5, 2010)~ filed in Rutherford v. Baca, 75-cv-04 111-DDP (no. .

28 217).

-14-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 16 of 83 Page ID #:928

1 inmates and their families about deputy-inflicted injuries, ranging from broken ribs.

2 and black eyes to severe head wounds that required staples. The report also

3 documented a persistent pattern of retaliation and threats of retaliation by deputies

4 against inmates who protested the conditions of their confmement.

5

37. In September 2010, the ACLU National Prison Project and the

6 ACLU of Southern California sub:mitted to SheriffBaca and filed with the ·

7. Rutherford Court the ACLU's "Interim Report on Conditions in the Los Angeles

8 County Jails."32 That report stated:

9

The ACLU's 2009 Annual Report describes the pervasive

10

pattern of violence that we observed in Men's Central Jail

11

(MCJ) in 2009. During the first eight months of2010, the

12

violence has continued unabated. One aspect of the

13

violence we discussed in our 2009 report was deputies'

14

use of excessive and unjustified force, which continues to

15

date: in the five-month period 'from March 10 through

16

August 10, 2010, we received more than 70 complaints of

17

excessive and/or unjustified force, or retaliation by

18

deputies against prisoners, or both. Twenty of the

19

.prisoners making these complaints have provided W3 with

20

sworn written statements.33

21

38. In December 2010, the media reported on a large-scale brawl at

22 an LASD Christmas party at a banque~ hall in Montebello. The brawl was between

23 members of the 3000 Boys (the deputy gang discussed above in Paragraph 8) and

·24 other deputies who worked in Men's Central Jail. In commenting publicly on the

25 incident, SheriffBaca characterized it as the "drunkenness of a few bad apples,"

26

32 Mary Tiedeman et al., ACLU National Prison Project & ACLU of Southern

27 California, 2010 InterJm·Report on Conditions in the Los A1Jg_eles County Jails

(pept. 9, 2010), filed m Rutherford v. Baca, 75-cv-04111-DDP (no. 226).

28 Ja. at 3.

.

-15-

flRSTAMENDEDCONWLAlNTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 17 of 83 Page ID #:929

1 and opined that cops "!mow how to take care of themselves," and that they need to

2 "man up and say, 'I'm not a wimp."' SheriffBaca insisted that "the core ofwhat

3 occurred with these 3000 boys ... wasn't their tattoo. It wasn't their unit. It was

4 their friendship and their drinking.''34

5

39. The OIR, however, disagreed, stating, "Perhaps most concerning

6 is the evidence that jail supervisors apparently lmew about the use of 'gang-like'

7 signs and other troubling behavior well before the eruption of violence at the

8 Christmas party."35

9

40. On September 25,·2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

10 FBI was conducting a criminal investigation into deputy abuse at the Jails.36·

11

41. On September 28, 2011, the ACLU filed an Annual Report in

12 .Rutherford v. Baca, reporting seventy cases of extreme deputy abuse in the

13 previous year, including accountS by civilian eyewitnesses of savage deputy

14 beatings of inmates in the Jails.37

15

42. On October 13, 2011, the OIR issued a report stating that the

16 Sheriffs Department has failed over many years to follow through on proposals to

17 address violence in the Jails.38

18

43. ·In eaily December 2011, Robert Olmsted, a retired top LASD

19 official who had been the Captain in charge ofMen's Central Jail before being

20 promoted to Commander in the LASD's Custody Division, and who oversaw both

21 Men's Central Jail and Tw~n Towers, publicly disclosed that SheriffBaca and other

22 senior Department staff, including Tanaka and Bums, have long had actual

23

34 KTLA Special Report: The Gang Behind the Badge? Part4 (KTLA television

24 broadcast).

·

· ··

·

35 Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, Violence in the Los Angeles 25 County Jails: A Report on Investigatzons and Outcomes 8 (Oct. 2011).

36 Robert Faturechl, FBI Probing Reports ofBeatings in L.A. County Jails, Los

26 AI!geles Times, Sept. 25, 20 11 . ·

.. ·

·

37 Sarah Liebowitz et al., ACLU National Prison Project & ACLU of Southern

27 California, Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jail (Sept. 28,

2011), filed in.RutherJord v. Baca, 75-cv-04111-DDP (.no. 294).

28 38 Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, supra note 31, at 7.

-16-

F~STAMENDEDCO~LAmTFOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 18 of 83 Page ID #:930

1 · knowledge of the pattern of widespread deputy violence in the Jails. Olmsted had

· 2 repeatedly informed Baca, Tanaka, and Burns of such problems, and tried to raise

3 . red flags about shoddy investigations that allowed deputies to escape scrutiny for

4 . using force. Olmsted had also voiced concerns to them about deputies forming

5 gang-like aggressive clig_ues. Chief Bums told Olmsted that it was impossible to

. 6 change the deputy culture in Men's Central Jail. Sheriff B;:1.ca never followed up

7 with Commander Olmsted after he twice approached him about problems in Men's

8 Centrai Jail. See Paragraphs 194 - 200, for further discussion of Olmsted and his

9 perspective on the problems in the Jails.

10

44. On January 10, 2012 SheriffBaca testified to the Board of

11 Supervisors that use of force often arises when inmates have been declassified from

12 mental health housing in TTCF Tower 1 to be returned to Men's Central Jail. This

13 practice ofimproperly declassifying mentally ill inmates from mental health

14 housing in Tower 1 and placing them in general population in MCJ is one that ·

15 Dr. Kupers identified almost four years earlier as resulting in the abuse of mentally

16 ill inmates.

17

45 . On January 11, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

18 Sheriff's Department had admitted that use of force against inmates in the Los

19 Angeles County jails was disproportionately directed at inmates with mental illriess.

20 "Los Angeles County jailers are more likely to use .force against mentally ill ·

21 inmates than other prisoners, according to a new Sheriff's Department report that 22 acknowledges the lockups rieed specially trained staff to reduce the violence."39

23 This admission comes almost four years after Dr. Kupers concluded that deputy on

· 24 inmate abuse was disproportionately directed at mentally ill inmates, that deputies

25 lacked proper training in dealing with the mentally ill, and recommended that "[a]ll

26

27

28

.39 Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi, L.A. County Jailers More Likely to Use Force on Mentally Ill Inmates, Los AngelesTimes, Jan. 11 , 2012. .

-17-

FIRST AMENJ:)ED COMPLAINT FOR lNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 19 of 83 Page ID #:931

1 officers ... be required to undergo intensive training in working with prisoners

2 with mental illness."

3

46. On January 14, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that the

4 United States had filed felony bribery charges against Gilbert. Michel, a deputy in 5 the Sheriffs Department Custody Division.40 The article also reported that Deputy

6 Michel had "made statements which implicated him, along with several other jail

7 employees, as having participated in four prior unreported incidents of improper

8 uses offorce."

.

.

9

B. Representative Examples Of Deputy Violence Against Inmates

10

47. Degrading, cruel, and sadistic deputy attacks on inmates are not

11 isolated incidents at the Jails; they are commonplace. Time and again, numerous

12 · deputies attack one inmate. Even .as the inmate lies motionless on the ground, new .

13 deputies are summoned by radio and join in the attack. In the course of a beating, it

14 is a common practice for deputies to yell "Stop fighting!" or "Stop resisting!" to an

15- inmate who is neither fighting nor resisting. This practice is an effort to fabricate a

. 16 reason to blame the inmates for the attacks.

17

a.

18

48. On September 24, 2011, Mr. A was lying down on the floor of

19 his pod in Twin Towers suffering frorri a migraine headache and vertigo. When

20 Mr. A asked Deputy Alatorre for his prescribed migraine medication, Deputy

21 Alatorre kicked a book at him and left the module, ignoring his request for the

22 medication.

23

49. When Deputy Alatorre returned later with Deputy Ewell,

24 Deputy Alatorre grabbed Mr. A by the shirt and tried to pull him off the floor.

25 Mr. A lost his balance and hithis chin on the floor. The two deputies dragged

26 40 Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonard, 1st Charge Filed in FBI Probe ofL.A. Sheriff's

Deputy Misconduct, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14, 2012: . ·

27 41 Due to the ongoing risk ofviolent retaliation against inmates from deputies in the

28

Sheriffs Departmen~1 the identities of inmates currently housed in the Jails have
been protected -- wim. the exception of the named Plaintiffs.

-18-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 20 of 83 Page ID #:932

1 Mr. A to his cell, forced him against the wall, and twisted his right arm so hard that.

2 he yelled out in pain. Deputy Alatorre pulled down Mr. A's pants below the

3 buttocks and verbally taunted him, while Deputy Ewell sat on Mr. A's legs right

4 below his exposed buttocks. Deputy Alatorre pushed Mr. A's face against the wall,

5 hitting his forehead, and then placed Mr. A in a stress position for several minutes

6 by pushing his knee or boot into Mr. A's back. Although Mr. A was still suffering

7 from the migraine and vertigo, in addition to an injured back and an arm that felt

8 like it was broken, the deputies waved off medical staff from helping Mr. A.

9

50. One day later, Mr. A was given twenty-five days in disciplinary

10 segregation as a result of the.incident. Mr. A was 48 years old at the time of the

11 beating.

12

b. Macario Garcia

13

51. In July 2011, when Macario Garcia was housed in Men's

14 Central Jail, Deputy Chavez came to his cell and told him to get up because he had

15 an appointment with an eye doctor. Deputy Chavez handcuffed him from behind

16 and then escorted Mr. Garcia out,ofhis cell. Deputy Wiener was standing inside

17 the gated deputy's control booth next to the cell door controls.

18

52. Mr. Garcia is blind in one eye as a result of a previous beating

19 by deputies. He is 42 years old, and of very slight build: he is 6'2" and weighs .165

20 pounds. At approximately 6'2" and 275 pounds, Deputy Chavez ·is of massive

21 build and outweighs Mr. Garcia by more than 100 pounds. Deputy Weiner weighs

22 approximately 220 pounds.

23

53. Deputy Weiner said to Mr. Garcia, "Oh, it's you, you piece of

24 shit, punk." Evidently referring to an incident two weeks earlier in which he had

25 strip-searched Mr.·Garcia, Deputy Weiner said, "Shut the fuck up, punk. You ain't

26 nothing but a coward bitch. You had your chance to fight me but you didn't."

27 Deputy Chavez said, "You're not going to go to your doctor's appointment. ... Get

28 against the wall." Mr. Garcia complied and faced the wall opposite.the deputy's

-19-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR · INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 21 of 83 Page ID #:933

1 control booth. Deputies Chavez and Weiner attacked him, punching him several

2 times until he fell to the ground from the blows. After Mr. Garcia fell, Deputies

3 Chavez and Weiner punched and kicked his head, face, body and legs, and beat his

4 body and torso with their flashlights. The deputies also pulled his haii and·

5 slammed his head on the ground. The beating continued for approximately five

6 minutes. Mr. Garcia heard Deputy Weiner call out radio code "415," meaning an

7 officer is involved in a fight. Mr. Garcia then blacked ·out.

8

54. When Mr. Garcia regained consciousness he heard Deputies

9 Chavez and Weiner yelling, "Stop resisting! Stop pulling away!" Mr. Garcia was

10 still handcuffed and not resisting in any way. He saw several other·deputies

· 11 running toward him. A deputy sprayed Mr. Garcia in the face with pepper spray as

12 Deputies Chavez and Weiner co~tinued to punch and kick him.

13

55. The deputies then tried to pull Mr. Garcia to his feet by his arms,

14 which were handcuffed behind him. Mr. Garcia felt a sharp pain in his collarbone

15 and heard a loud crack. Though he yelled in pain, the deputies continued pulling on

16 his arms and dragged him toward the elevator. Mr: Garcia's face was covered in

17 blood. He was unable to walk so deputies dragged him to the medical clinic.

18 · There, the nurses said that he should be taken to the Los Angeles Medical Center

19 because his injuries were so serious.

20

56. While waiting to be transferred to the hospital, Mr. Garcia heard

21 deputies laughing at him. One deputy said, "You didri't get hit. You fell." A

22 sergeant and two deputies interviewed him on video about the incident, and

23 Mr. Garcia reported that Deputies Chavez and Weiner assaulted him.

24

57. At the hospital, medical staff told Mr. Garcia that he had a

25 broken collarbone. He received stitches above both ofhis eyebrows and had

26 bruises on his face and legs. Mr. Garcia now has dizzy spells and. sometimes hears

·27 a ·ringing in his ear. Mr. Garcia cannot raise his right arm more than three to six 28 inches. Less than a week -~ater, two lieutenants and a sergeant took pictures of

~20-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 22 of 83 Page ID #:934

1 Mr. Garcia's injuries; however, they did riot ask him any questions about the

2 incident. TheDA has since filed criminal charges against Mr. Garcia for, among

3 other things, assaulting a deputy.

4

c. Arturo Fernandez

5

58. In July 2011, Arturo Fernandez was retumingto his cell when

6 deputies attacked him, slamming him to the ground, shooting pepper spray into his

7 eyes, and repeatedly pummeling his body. While Mr. Fernat).dez was walking

8 towards his cell, his hands cuffed behind ·him, Deputy Guerrero ordered him to

9 move more quicldy, and then-began punching the back of his neck. When

10 Mr. Fernandez responded with an expletive, Deputy Guerrero forced him to the

11 wall, pinning him by his neck. Although Mr. Fernandez did not fight back, Deputy

12 Guerrero yelled, "Stop resisting, motherfucker." Another deputy slammed

13 Mr. Fernandez to the ground. .With his hands cuffed, Mr. Fernandez could not .

14 break his fall. More deputies arrived; with pepper spray in his eyes, Mr. Fernandez

15 · could not see how many. He felt kicks, punches, and hard blows that seemed to

16 come from flashlights. After picking Mr. Fernandez up, deputies again slammed

17 him to the ground.

18

59. Throughout the attack, Mr. Fernandez, who has asthma, worried

19 .that he would lose .consciousness. · Two eyewitnesses saw him bleeding profusely

20 and heard him say that he could ·not breathe. .When the attack was over,

21 Mr. Fernandez was sent to the hospital. He had contusions on his head, required

22 stitches on his elbow, suffered hearing loss in one ear, and continues to have

23 headaches.

24

d. · Lawrence Davis

25

60. On March 16, 2011, Deputies Diaz, Rodriguez, and Owens

26 pepper-sprayed and brutally beat a black inmate, Lawrence Davis, ·until he was

27 unconscious. The deputies fractured Mr. Davis's jaw and knocked out one of his.

28 teeth. One or more of the deputies then carved the letters "MY'' into Mr. Davis's

-21-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 23 of 83 Page ID #:935

1 scalp. "MY" is the first two letters ofthe Mexican/Hispanic slur-"MYATE" used

2 - pejoratively for blacks.

3

e. _ Mr. B

4

61. In March 2011, deputies_slammed Mr. B's head into a cement

5 wall, leaving him with a concussion and a gash that took 35 stitches to close. The

6 group of deputies~ including Deputies Moorman and Ibarra and Custody Assistant

7 Perez, punched his face and head, and kicked his ribs. They aimed pepper spray

8 into his eyes before shooting taser probes into his back. The confrontation began

9 because deputies thought Mr. B had called them "gay." When Mr. i3 repeatedly

10 denied the accusation, a deputy yelled to the row ofpro per inmates- who serve as

11 their own legal representatives - -"y'all propers think you can get away with

12 anything. We the 3000 Boys," a reference to the gang-like group of deputies in

13 Men's Central Jail, discussed in Paragraph 8 above. A deputy said to Mr. B, "Baca

14 pays us to take kickboxing classes to whip peoples' asses." The deputy grabbed

15 Mr. B's head, slamming his face into the wall. Blood poured down, pooling on the

16 ground, and he passed out. Deputies handcuffed Mr. B's arms behind his back and

17 repeatedly punched his face and head, while other deputies stood watching.

18

62. When Mr. B regained consciousness, one deputy was sitting on _

19 his back, punching his face and head. Another was kicking Mr. B 's ribs. Although

20 Mr. B was motionless, the deputies yelled, "Stop resisting." Mr. B pleaded with

21 them to stop. One deputy shot him with pepper spray. Another sank three taser

22 probes into his flesh.

23

63. Two of the deputies who beat Mr. B stood roughly 6 feet tall,

24 and weighed approxilnately 200 pounds. The custody assistant was slightly shorter

25 and weighed about 180 pounds. Mt. B is 5 feet 7 inches and weighs 135 pounds.

26 A sergeant accused him of assaulting the deputies, but the ambulance technician on

27 the scene pointed out that the deputies showed no signs ofinjury. Another sergeant

28

-22-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 24 of 83 Page ID #:936

.1 returned to the module to take pictm·es of the scene, but he did not-interview any of

2 the inmates who had witnessed the assault.

3 ·

64. Mr. B spent two days in the hospital and four days in the jail's

4 medical unit. After returning to his row, another deputy threatened him, saying:

5 "the ACLU ain't going to be watching me forever."

6

65 . Although there were numerous inmates in the law library who

7 were able to see the assault through the library window, no one from LASD

8 bothered to interview any of the eyewitnesses.

9

f. · Gabriel Carillo

10

66. On or about February 26, 2011, at least three deputies, including

11 Deputy Luviano, severelybeat Gabriel Carillo, who had come to Men's Central Jail

12· to visit his brother. The deputies repeatedly kicked and punched Mr. Carillo, while

13 he was handcuffed, severely cutting and bruising his face (photos attached hereto.as

14 Exhibit A). The deputies also pepper sprayed Mr. Carillo in the face while he was

15 handcuffed and lying on the floor. During the beating one or more deputies

16 repeatedly yelled "Stop resisting! Stop kicking!" even though Mr. Carillo was riot

17 resisting or kicking. Subsequently the deputies filed false reports causing the

18 District Attorney to charge Mr. Carillo with battery against a peace officer, resisting

19 arrest, and three other counts. O:q. October 14, 2011, the DA dismissed the charges

20 · against him.

21"

g. Cesar Mancilla

22

67. On or about February 24, 2011, deputies savagely beat Cesar

23 Mandlla at IRC. Mr. Mancilla was in a large holding cell with other inmates, when

24 · the deputies ordered him to starid with his head down. Mr. Mancilla obeyed.

25 Suddenly, and without justification or warning; several uniformed personnel

26 attacked Mr. Mancilla, hitting, kicking, and pepper-spraying him. The deputies

27 handcuffed Mr. Mancilla, and continued to beat him. Mr. Mancilla was denied

28 · food, water, and medical attention for the remainder of the night.

-23-

. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 25 of 83 Page ID #:937

1

68. On February 25, 2011, a doctor examined Mr. Mancilla and

2 determined he had a collapsed lung, two broken ribs, a nasal fracture, four broken -

3 teeth (photo attached hereto as Exhibit B), burns on his skirt from the pepper spray,

4 and other injuries. Mr. Mancilla was in jail on a non-violent misdemeanor.

5

h. Stephen Teran (Second Incident)_

6

69. In February 2011~ while Stephen Teran was housed in Men's

7 Central Jail, deputies heard that Mr. Teran's attorney had r~quested his medical

8 records relating to a use of force. The deputies beat Mr. Teran, repeatedly punching

9 and kicking his body, neck, and head. Mr. Teran's cheekbone was broken. He had

10 to wear a neck brace, and doctors told him that he may have suffered nerve damage.

11

1. Garry Crumpton

12

70. In January 2011, while inmates in Men's Central Jail were in a

13 line headed to- court, Deputy Ortiz shoved Garry Crumpton against the wall.

14 Mr. Crumpton said, "You didn't have to do me like that." Deputy Ortiz then placed

15 him in a painful chokehold. Even though Mr. Crumpton put his hands in the air in

16 a show of non-resistance, Deputy Ortiz slammed him to the floor, knocking him

17 unconscious. Another deputy instructed all the other iillnates in line to face the

18 wall. While Mr. Crumpton lay face-down and motionless on the ground, seven or

-19 eight deputies punched and kicked him. He was removed to.a caged area in the jail.

20 Deputy Ortiz came-by to -speak with him about the incident. Though Mr. Crumpton

21 did not agree with the deputy's account, he assented to everything Deputy Ortiz

22 - said because he did not want to be assaulted again.

23

J· Michael Cervantes

24

71. In December 2010, Deputy Lyon noticed Mr. Cervantes's gang

25 tattoo and began smacking the back of his head and taunting him. When

26 Mr. Cervantes tumed'to look at Deputy Lyon, he punched Mr. Cervantes's left

27 cheek, tackled him.to the ground, sat on top of him, and punched his face and neck.

28 Approximately eight other deputies rushed to join Deputy Lyon. The deputies

-24-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 26 of 83 Page ID #:938

1 bashed Mr. Cervantes's leg with a flashlight until he bled, kicked him in the

2 stomach, and stunned him twice with a taser gun. When the attack was over, the

3 deputies cautioned Mr. Cervantes not to _tell the nurses "anything funny." Due to

4 the severity ofhis-illjuries, Mr. Cervantes was taken to the hospital and spent one

5 week in the jail's medical ward. He continues to suffer dizzy spells.

6

k. Stephen Teran (First Incident)

7

72. In December 2010, several deputies severely beat Stephen Teran

8 while he was in the IRC.

9

73. While Mr. Teran was being searched, Custody Assistant

10 Martinez repeatedly told him to hurry up. Martinez then grabbed Mr. Teran by the

11 neck, choking him, and dragged him to a cell where he threw Mr. Teran to the -

12 ground. Martinez kicked him in the ribs two or three times. Deputy Sims, who was

13 present during the attack, told Mr. Teran, "If you give us any problems we're going

14 to put you in the hospital."

15

74. A few hours later, Mr. Teran was sent back to the processing

16 line. While interviewing Mr. Teran for classification purposes, Deputy Sims

17 dropped Mr.·Teran's classification card on the floor next to him and told him to

18 pick itup. ·When Mr. Teran did not pick up the card, Deputy Sims punched him in

19 the face, knocking him over. Deputy Sims then threw Mr. Teran to.the floor and _

20 repeatedly kicked him in the head and torso. Four to six other deputies, including

21 Deputies Miller and Escobado, ran over and joined in the beating, punching,

22 kicking, and striking Mr. Teran with their flashlights. As they were beating

23 Mr. Teran, the deputies yelled, "Stop fighting! Stop resisting!"

24

75. After two or three minutes, the deputies dragged Mr; Teran to a

25 cell and handcuffed him to the leg of a bench, forcing him to kneel on the floor.

26 The deputies kicked Mr. Teran in the back several times. Mr. Teran saw-blood

27 pouring offhis head and face, pooling on the ground beneath him. He heard the ·

28 ·deputies say they did not want blood on their clothes. The deputies then they put a

-25-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 27 of 83 Page ID #:939

1 plastic bag over Mr. Teran's head, making it almost impossible for him to breathe.

2 The deputies laughed as they left the cell.

3

76. The deputies returned about twenty minutes later and·told

4 Mr. Teran he would be interviewed on camera. They threatened to press charges if

5 he said anything. Mr. Teran told the interviewer that he had fallen. Later, the

6 deputies again threatened him and warned him not to talk about the incident.

7

I. Rashaad Pilgrim

8

77. In July 2010, deputies in Men's Central Jail targeted Rashaad

9 Pilgrim ashe stood in line to receive his medication. The deputies instructed all of

10 the inmates in line to face the wall. Deputy Reza approached Mr. Pilgrim from

11 behind and yelled at him before punching him twice in the face. When Mr. Pilgrim

12 returned to his cell a few minutes later, he called his mother to -report what

13 happened. Not long after, Deputies Reza and Milpad ordered the inmates to line up

14 and go to the day room, but instructed Mr. Pilgrim to stay behind and face the wall.

15 One deputy spread his legs, as ifto search him. Instead, the other deputies began to

16 punch Mr. Pilgrim in the face and head. Mr. Pilgrim lost consciousness. When .

17 Mr. Pilgrim woke up, he was on the floor and the deputies were still punching him

18 and yelling, "Stop fighting!" A deputy then slammed Mr. Pilgrim's face into the

19 concrete floor, chipping his teeth. Later, doctors told Mr. Pilgrim he had fractures

20 in his face, blunt head trauma, injury to his right ear, and a chipped tooth.

21

m. Alex Krehbiel

22

78. In July 2010, a deputy approached Alex Krehbiel as he was

23 returning from a visit with his attorney. Mr. Krehbiel had been trying to get back to

24 his housing unit but the door was locked. The deputy ordered Mr. Krehbiel to face ·

25 the wall and yelled in his ear, "This is my fucking house! Where do you think you

26 are? This is my fucking house!" The deputy then slammed Mr. Krehbiel's forehead

27 against the wall twice. A group of deputies approached~ taunting Mr. Krehbiel, and

28 one of them punched him in the face. The deputies pushed Mr. Krehbiel into the

-26-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 28 of 83 Page ID #:940

1· laundry room, laiocked him to the floor, and punched and kicked his head, ribs, and

2 ba,ck. The deputies then pepper sprayed Mr. Krehbiel's eyes and mouth, and

·3 slammed his head into the floor. As a result of the incident, Mr. Krehbiel was

4 given twenty-nine days in disciplinary segregation.

5

n. Juan.Diego Mares

6

.79. In June 2010, deputies qeat Juan Diego Mares so violently that

7 he suffered a fractured jaw, and required multiple eye surgeries and eight stitches in

8 his ear. The incident began after deputies conducted a search of all the cells on

9 Mr. Mares's row. Mr. Mares noticed that some of his property was missing,

10 including items he had just purchased from the commissary. After Mr. Mares

11 asked to speak with a sergeant about the missing property, Deputy Carefoot shoved

12 him hard against a wall, slapped his ear, punched his face several times, and threw

13 him to the ground. Once Mr. Mares was on the ground, Deputy Carefoot kicked

14 him roughly ten times in the face, jaw, and back of his head, causing a large pool of

15 Mr. Mares's blood to form on the floor. The deputy then kicked Mr. Mares's ear

16 three times, an experience he described as more painful than when.he was hit by a

17 car. Following the attack, a ·senior deputy questioned Mr. Mares about the incident

18 arid said to him, "You know you're going [back] to the same module once they're

19 done cleaning you up." Mr. Mares-interpreted thls as the senior deputy threatening

20 him not to report the incident.

21 ·

o. _Santiago Sanchez

22

80. In June 2010 a deputy assaulted Santiago Sanchez following a

23 visit from Mr. Sanchez 's girlfriend and mother. The deputy-grabbed the back of

24 Mr. Sanchez's shirt and swung him into a steel _pole. The deputy proceeded to

25 place Mr. Sanchez into a stress position, twisting both of his arms behind his back

26 . so his fingers were pressed between his shoulder blades. The deputy then slammed

27 Mr. Sanchez' s head down on top ofthe metal counter in the visitation room. The

28

-27-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 29 of 83 Page ID #:941

1 deputy held ·Mr. Sanchez in that position for a minut~ or two while verbally

2 harassing him.

3

p. Jimmie Knott

4

81. In June 2010, while waiting in line for his hepatitis shot, Jimmie

5 Knott asked Senior Deputy Sanchez if he could get some new shoes, as his had a

6 split in them. Senior Deputy Sanchez told Mr. Knott to get out of line and to strip

7 down. Mr: Knott complied and stripped to his boxers. Senior Deputy Sanchez then

8 told him to get on his knees, and as Mr. Knott was bending to the floor, Senior

9 Deputy Sanchez hit him in the temple, causing his head to bleed. Other deputies

10 then came over and began hitting, kicking and kneeing him. Mr. Knott curled into

11 a fetal position and waited for the violence to subside. After two or three minutes;

12 the deputies stopped hitting him and took him to ·medical. On the way to medical,

13 the deputies told him to say that he fell down the stairs. Mr. Knott complied,

14 because he was afraid of being beaten again. Mario Love witnessed the attack and

15 verified Mr. Knott's accou.n:,t. Mr. Love described the deputies involved as being

16 like "a pack of wolves." Later, while Mr. Love was waiting to talk to the ACLU,

17 . deputies pulled him aside and interrogated him in a threatening way.

18

q. Joseph Hager

19

82. In June 2010,_deputies took Joseph Hager out of his cell and

20 ·placed him in handcuffs to go to the law library: At the library, a deputy shoved

21 Mr. Hager up against the wall and kicked his anlde so forcefully it bled. The

22 deputy then dragged Mr. Hager, who was still handcuffed, back to the tier, where

23 he slammed Mr. Hager's face into the edge of a door frame. Mr. Hager blacked

24 out. When Mr. Hager regained consciousness, he was on the ground and Deputies

25 Chavez and Gonzalez were kicking and punching him in the head and face. Even

26 though Mr. Hager was ·handcuffed, the deputies repeatedly yelled, "Stop resisting!"

27 When the beating subsided, Deputy Chavez told him, "I tried to kill you. You are

28 · lucky you are still breathing." The beating caused a fracture in Mr. Hager's face, a

. -28-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 30 of 83 Page ID #:942

1 ·black eye, swelling in his ears, and bleeding in his mouth. When staff members

2 interviewed Mr. Hager on camera, he said that he had slipped in the shower, out of

3 fear of what the deputies would do to him if he revealed that they had beaten him.

4 After the beating, Mr. Hager was sent to disciplinary segregation and told he was ·

5 being charged with assault on a deputy.

6

r. Matthew Gjersvold

7

83. On May 28, 2010, while housed in Twin Towers, Matthew

8 Gjersvold slept through a deputy's call for a head count because ofthe sleep

9 medication he was taking. Another inmate woke up Mr. Gjersvold, who is a former

10 police officer, but the deputies noticed that he was late. Deputy Van Du told

11 Mr. Gjersvold to stand facing the stairs, and then forcefully shoved him onto the

12 · metal steps. Deputy Van Du then handcuffed Mr. Gjersvold and escorted him back

13 to his cell. At the cell, Deputy Van Du pulled violently on the handcuffs, causing

14 Mr. Gjersvold to fall backwards and break his wrist.

15

s. Luis Bueno

16

84. In May 2010, Luis Bueno was on his way to the church in

17 Men's Central Jail. Deputies told Mr. Bueno to turn around and return to his cell.

18 As Mr. Bueno was walking back to his cell, a deputy shoved him against the wall ·

19 and asked him if he wanted to get "fucked up." As other deputies ·arrived, the frrst

20 deputy forced Mr. Bueno to spread his legs and put his hands behind his back. The

21 deputy then aimed his mace at Mr. Bueno's face. When Mr. Bueno turned his head

22 to avoid the spray, another deputy punched him in the neck. Three other deputies

23 joined in and began violently punching Mr. Bueno :ln the head and body.

24 Mr. Bueno was lmocked to the floor, wher~ the beating continued. · When the

25 beating subsided, deputies took Mr. Bueno to the medical center, where he was told

26. he had a fractured nose, a tom ligament in his ankle, a swollen artery in his brain,

27 and possible rib fractures. Mr. Bueno is now afraid to attend church for fear of

28 encountering the deputies who attacked him.

-29-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 31 of 83 Page ID #:943

1

t. · Walter Morales

2

85. For about a week in May 2010, deputies in Men's Central Jail

3 beat Walter Morales twice a day with flashlights about his head and body.

4 Mr. Morales believes the deputies beat him because he was arrested for allegedly
5 firing agun at police officers. A group of deputies came into Mr. Morales's cell

6 and punched and hit him with flashlights. Mr. Morales has a scar above his eye as

7 a result. Later, a second shift of deputies beat Mr. Morales while he was restrained

8 in waist chains and handcuffs.

9

u. Michael Holguin

10

86. In October 2009, deputies beat Michael Holguin so severely that

11 he was hospitalized with a broken leg, stitches on his face, and staples in his head.
12 The incident occurred as Mr. Holguin was on his way to the showers. A deputy

13 told him to go back to his cell, preventing him from using the showers. Mr.
14 Holguin asked liim why, because he had not received a shower in weeks. The

15 deputy told him to tum around and placed Mr. Holguin in handcuffs. The rest of

16 the beating is a blur to Mr. Holguin; all he remembers is being punched in the face

17 . by Deputy Luviano and pepper sprayed. When the beating was over, Deputy Rico

18 said, "That's why you don't say why; just do what you're told." When Mr. Holguin

19 returned from the hospital, he was sent to disciplinary segregation for "attac1¢ng a

20 deputy."

21

v. Gordon Grbavac

22

87. In August 2009, deputies in Twin Towers handcuffed Gordon

·23 Grbavac, took him into an attorney room, and slammed his head into a thick glaSs

24 wall more than half a dozen times, leaving blood on the window. Wh€m a sergeant

25 entered the room andasked Mr. Grbavac what had happened, he said the deputies

26 had assaulted him. The sergeant said he would be right back. While he was gone

27 one of the deputies who had assaulted Mr. Grbavac threatened him, saying, "Are

28 you fucking kidding me? You motherfucker! You better change your story or we

-30-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTIJNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 32 of 83 Page ID #:944

1 are going to show you what we do to fat asses. You better say yo.u did this to

2 · yourself." Mr. Grbavac thought that the deputies might kill him ifhe disobeyed, so

3 he agreed to tell the sergeant that his injuries were self-inflicted. When the sergeant

4 returned with a video camera to interview Mr; Grbavac," one of the deputies who

5 assaulted him was in the room, and the sergeant did not ask him to leave. Because

6 ofthe deputy's threats, Mr. Grbavac altered his story and said he had banged his

7 own head against the window. Mr. Grbavac was released after spending

8 approximately a week in jail, when the charges against him were dismissed.

9

w. Darrell Garrett

10

88. In June 2009, a group of deputies assaulted Darrell Garrett in

f1 Men's Central Jail while he was restrained in waist chains. Deputies shoved -

·12 Mr. Garrett from behind, causing him to tumble down concrete stairs. Deputies

13 then kicked Mr. Garrett in the face and head, while another deputy held him down.

14 As the beating continued, they hit him in the head with a plastic milk crate, ground

15 his face into the concrete floor, and emptied two cans of mace into Mr. Garrett's

16 mouth, ears, nose and eyes. The beating caused Mr. Garrett to bleed profusely and

17 to defecate. Mr. Garrett blacked out as deputies transported him to medical. In the

18 aftermath of the beating, deputies have threatened and taunted Mr. Garrett, saying

19 they are "going to get him."

20

x. Mr.C

21

89. In May 2009 in Men's Central Jail, a deputy told Mr. C to face

22 the wall and said, "Who's the fucking punk now? .Put yol.rr fucking nose to the

23 wall." The deputy punched him in the temple, causing Mr. C to fall to the floor.

24 After Mr. C received a second ·blow to the top of his head, he tried to crawl away

25 bu;twas stopped by other deputies. The deputies ripped offMr. C's pants and shot

26 him with a taser. Just before Mr. Clost consciousness, he looked down and saw ·

27 blood pooling on the floor. As a result ofthe beating, Mr. C suffered four fractured
a 28 vertebrae, shattered right shoulder, a broken rib, and two severely sprained ankles,

-31-

FIRST AMENDED Co:tv1PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 33 of 83 Page ID #:945

1 and was relegated to a wheelchair. He also received five staples on the top of this

2 head and twelve stitches on his face. Since the beating, deputies have routinely

3 threC).tened Mr. C to prevent him from asking for help or reporting the abuse to

4 someone outside the jail.

5

y. Mr. D

6

90. Deputies_assaulted Mr. Don a number o{different occasions. In

7 2009 in Men's Central Jail,ten to fifteen deputies came into Mr. D's cell and

8 assaulted him for allegedly "disrespecting" one ofthe other deputies. They dropped

9 Mr. D to the floor and pummeled his head and body with kicks, punches, and blows

10 with their flashlights. Even after the deputies had Mr. D fully restrained on the

11 floor with his hands behind his back, they repeatedly ~hot him with a taser. One

12 deputy said to Mr. D, "Man, I was trying to kill you." The deputies threatened

13 Mr. Dafter the attack and told him not to tell anyone what had happened. Mr. D

14 still has scars on his face and head from the beating.

15

C. Numerous Additional Incidents of Deputies Using Force Against

16

Non-Resisting Inmates

17

91. Additional incidents of.deputies using force against non-

18 resisting inmates include the following:

19

92. On December 13, 2011, Custody Assistant Martinez tasered 52

20 year old inmate Mr. E in Twin Towers, and a number of deputies, punched, and

21 kicked him before they handcuffed.him. At the time they used force against him,

22 Mr. E was lying on the.ground face down and was not attempting to fight or resist

23 the deputies in any way. Although Mr. E had been in an altercation with another

24 .inmate shortly beforehand, he ·was not resisting when Custody Assistant Martinez

25 tasered him, or when deputies rushed in ·and began kicking and punching him.

26 Mr. E was subsequently sent to the hole for 18 days without a disciplinary hearing;

27 however, deputies presented him with paperwork that stated that he had had a

28 disciplinary hearing.

-32-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 34 of 83 Page ID #:946

1

93. On December 6, 2011, Mr. F was punchedin the face by a

2 deputy while being escorted out of a courtroom with his hands cuffed behind him.

3 The deputy, who was 6 feet tall and approximately 250 pounds, grabbed the 5'8"

4 and 160 pound Mr. F by the left arm tightly and then punched Mr. F, hitting his left

5 eye so hard that it knocked Mr. F to the floor. With blood dripping from a long

6 gash in his face onto the floor, Mr. F was taken to the hospital irian ambulance.

7 Although a doctor stated·that Mr. F needed stitches, two deputies told the doctor

8 that Mr. F was fme and _Mr. F left the hospital without the stitches. A sergeant

9 videorecorded Mr. F's injuries when he initially boarded the ambulance, and later

10 interviewed him on camera about the beating. · The sergeant informed Mr. F that he

11 could file a lawsuit, but that it would be a "waste of time." Mr. F still has difficulty

12 seeing out of his left eye.

13

94. In August 2011, deputies grabbed Anthony Brown, then 52

14 years old, by his windpipe, slammed him to the ground, and repeatedly punched

15 and kicked him.all over his body, including in his teeth. Deputies also shot pepper

16 spray into Mr. Brown's face. The deputies repeatedly yelled "Quit resisting" at the

17 non-resisting Mr. Brown.

18

95. On July 12, 2011 , a deputy in Twin Towers slamm~d Charles

19 Celestine against a wall while searching his cell. The impact caused

20 Mr. Celestine's prosthetic eye to pop out.

21

96. On June 25,2011 , a deputy in Men's Central Jail punched Mr.

22 G, a 57 year old inmate who uses a wheelchair, in the eye and the mouth.

23

97. On June 20, 2011, Deputy Jimenez caused Clydell Crawford's

24 bad shoulder to dislocate from its socket by shoving his arms upward.forcefully .

25 while they were handcuffed behind his back. Immediately before, Mr. Crawford

26 had asked·Deputy Jimenez to be careful because one ofhis shoulders had

27 previously dislocated.

28

-33-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 35 of 83 Page ID #:947

1

98 . · In April2011, a deputy in Men's Central Jail asked Mr. H why

2 he was in jail before repeatedly punching his head, face, and ribs. Another deputy
3 kicked Mr. H 's ribs. The beating lasted 30-45 seconds. Subsequently, one or more

4 deputies cranked open Mr. H's cell, allowing three inmates to come into the cell

5 and assault him.

6

99. In April2011, a custody assistant kicked, hit, and elbowed

7 Carlos Cacique in Twin Towers.

8

100. In March 2011 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Smith knocked a

9 . tray of food from Alberto Carreras·' s hands and twisted his arms behind his back.

10 Deputy Johnson then slammed Mr. Carrera's face against a wall. Deputies hit

11 Mr. Carreras on his face, head, and legs, while yelling "Shut up you fucking

12 ·faggot" at him. Mr. Carreras had a catheter, and the blows to his legs caused

13 tremendous pain and led him to bleed from his penis.

14

101. In March 2011, a deputy in Twin Towers dug her nails into

15 Anthony Pemnik' s skin, leaving marks. Another deputy hit and kicked Mr. Penmik

16 in the legs and buttocks.

17

102. On February 18, 2011, Mr. I witnessed seven or eight deputies

18 beating up a non-resisting inmate in Men's Central Jail. During the beating, one

19 deputy was pushing the inmate's neck to the floor with a flaShlight, while other

20 deputies were yelling "stop resisting."

21

103. In February 2011 at Twin Towers, Deputy Hernandez forcibly

22 searched Rodney Srnith's ·buttocks with a flashlight, placing the flashlight half an 23 inch into his rectum. Mr. Smith's rectum later bled and became painful~ which he

24 attributed to the flashlight's being pushed into his rectum. Mr. Smith also

25 witnessed deputies take away another inmate and apparently attack him; that inmate

26 ·. suffered extensive injuries .

. 27

28

-34-

FIRsT AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 36 of 83 Page ID #:948

1

104. In February 2011, Deputy Walker attacked tv1r. J in Men's

2 Central Jail after he woke up late for the morning count? causing a cut that required

3 forty stitches.

4

105. In January 2011, a deputy shoved Mr. K against the wall,

5 roughly twisted his hands and arm, and slammed him to the floor. Once Mr. K was

6 on the floor, several deputies punched and kicked him.

7

106. In January 2011, Christopher Brown witnessed two depudes in

8 Twin Towers punching a non-resisting inmate who fell to the floor, apparently

9 unconscious. The deputies then kneed and punched the motionless inmate in the

10 face and head and repeatedly shot the .inmate·with a taser.

11

107. On December 29, 2010 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Gomel

12 tripped Mr. L while he was handcuffed, and then slammed his head against the

13 ground, leaving blood all over the floor. Deputy Gomel then repeatedly punched

14 Mr. Lin the head while Deputy Rodriguez pepper sprayed his eyes, triggering his

15 asthma.

16

108. In December 2010, Deputy Vasquez pushed Michael

17 Campbell's injured back and punched his head multiple times while Mr. CaJ;Ilpbell

. 18 had his hands behind his back and his fmgers interlaced. While Deputy Vasquez

19 was punching Mr. Campbell, another deputy had him in a chokehold.

20 Mr. Campbell suffered extensive bruising and pain in his head, neck, and back. 21 · Mr~ Campbell was 60 years old at the time ofthebeating.

22

109. On November 26, 2010, Deputy Pontonantos punched Erik

m 23 Camacho the back of the head while he was in his wheelchair. Two other

24 deputies also hit Mr. Camacho. Then, after Mr. Camacho's wheelchair collapsed in

25 the midst ofthe beating, the deputies dragged him along the floor in the collapsed

26 whe~lchair, while Deputy Gomez kicked him. Shortly thereafter, Deputy

27 Pontonantos took one of Mr. Camacho's shoes, which had come off as he was

28

-35-

FIRST AMENDED COM:PLAJNT FOR · .INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 37 of 83 Page ID #:949

1 . being dragged along the floor, slapped him across face with it, and kicked him in

2 the testicles. ·

3

110. On November 18,2010 in Men's Central Jail, multiple deputies

4 hit, kicked, and kneed Jonathan Dunlap. One deputy then shot pepper spray in

5 Mr. Dunlap's face. Mr. Dunlap required stitches on his eyelid and s11ffered

6 extensive bruising. Mr. Dunlap was later sent to the hole for twenty days for

7 supposedly assaulting a deputy.

8

11 1. In November 2010, while on an LASD transport bus to court,

9 Deputy Stevenson repeatedly punched and then forcefully pushed Darrell Rauls,

10 causing hiin to fall. . .

11

112. In November 2010, deputies in Twin Towers beat Mr. M after

12 he protested Deputy Ochoa's decision to deny him dinner. Deputies Ochoa, Paket

13 and several others beat him so savagely for complaining that he suffered a fractured

14 nose, bruised kidneys and ribs, a two-centimeter gash on his forehead, and a

15 swollen right eye. LASD then had him charged with battery against a peace officer

16 and resisting a peace officer, although he had not comtnitted any battery or offered

17 any resistance.

18

113. In or about November 2010, a deputy in .Men's Central Jail

19 grabbed Mr. N' s arm and pulled him off his bunlc onto the floor. The deputy then

20 stepped on Mr. N's fingers, causing swelling and bruises.

21

114. In October orNovember.2010, Steven Moore heard deputies,

22 including Deputy Roberts, beating another inmate in the laundry room near his cell

23 in Men's Central Jail. Moore stated, "I will never forget this incident because the

24 inmate's terror and pain were so obvious in his screams." Shortly thereafter,

25 Mr. Moore saw deputies carrying a seemingly unconscious inmate, who was ·

26 bleeding from his head, out of the lau.ndry room.

27

115. In August 2010 in Men's Central Jail, when Keith Nichols ·

28 refused to discuss his legal case with a deputy, the deputy repeatedly kicked him in

-36-

FIRST A'tvfENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 38 of 83 Page ID #:950

1 the lower back and kidneys with his boot-clad foot, causing intense pain. The

2 deputy then punched Mr. Nichols in the head and yanked his leg, causing his knee

3 to pop out ofposition.

4

116. In July 2010 in Twin Towers, Custody Assistant Bernadino

5 punched Cedric Smith in the neck and slammed him into the wall. The deputy then

6 kicked Mr. Smith's feet, even though Mr. Smith had just had his toenail surgically

7 removed. This was not Mr. Smith's .first beating by deputies. In 2004, deputies

8 brutally attacked Mr. Smith, punching his face and kicking his stomach, causing

9 him to defecate. The 2004 attack left Mr. Smith with a severe stomach hernia and a

10 scar over'his eye.

11

117. In April2010, in Twin Towers, Deputy Bryant angrily pushed

12 Mr. 0 after he complained to the ACLU about a lack of medical treatment, and

13 Deputy Holland struck Mr. 0 in the back near Mr. O's existing wounds.

14

D. Racially Motivated Deputy Violence

15

118. Many deputies have assaulted inmates while taunting them with

16 racial epithets. In August 2011 , after choking inmate Mr. P and repeatedly

17 slamming his head and face into a metal bar and a wall in Men's Central Jail,

18 Deputy Valdez yelled, "I hate you motherfucking monkeys. Damn nigger!"

19

119. In July 2011, inmate Mr. Q witnessed a deputy on the 3000 floor

20 in Men·'s Central Jail grab a non-resi~ting African-American inmate, kick his legs,

21 and yell, "All you blacks! When you mess with my trustees, this is what's going to

22 happen to you." Numerous deputies then joined the attack, and began kicking,

23 · punching, and hitting the inmate with flashlights. After the attack, Mr. Q saw

24 trustees cleaning bloo.d offthe floor and wall.

25

120. In June 2011, a deputy in Men's Central Jail said of inmate

26 Michael Jefferson, who is African-American, "This nigger can't fucking listen and

27 face the wall." A deputy then smashed Mr. Jefferson's face into the wall. Sho'rtly

28

-37-

FIRST AMENDED CONIPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 39 of 83 Page ID #:951

1 thereafter, Deputy Quintana punched Mr. Jefferson in the face while he was

2 escorting him back to his module.

3

121. In October 2009, deputies performing cell searches in Men's

4 Central Jail took Mr. R's commissaryitems. When he complained, a deputy asked

5 Mr. R, who is African-American, "What's your problem, Monkey?" The deputy

6 told Mr. R to face his cell and forcefully shoved him into the bars ofthe cell door.

7 Later that day, after ACLU monitors visited Mr. R 's row, deputies threatened all of

8 the inmates with a bean bag canister gun that contains pepper spray pellets. A

9 deputy said, "We don't give a fuck about the·ACLU. This is our house. They don't

10 fucking live here."

11

122. In July 2009, Deputies Delgado, Aviles, Rivera, Thompson,

12 Ortega, Snyder, and others severely beat inmate Evans Tutton the 3000 floor in

13 Men's Central Jail, while calling Tutt a "fucking nigger." During the beating, the .

14 deputies handcuffed Mr. Tutt, and then tasered him, beat him with flashlights, and

15 kicked him. The deputies broke Mr. Tutt's nose in multiple places, injured his ribs,

16 head, face, knee, and leg, chipped his tooth, and left bruises all over his body. The

17 deputies then wrote false reports that prompted the Los Angeles County District

18 Attorney to file criminal charges against Mr. Tutt for resisting a peace officer. The

19 charges were eventually dismissed. Three of the deputies involved in the incident

20 have been identified as members of the 3000 Boys, and ~o of them were involved

21 in the 2010 Christmas Brawl at a banquet hall in Montebello, described in

22 . Paragraph 38.

23

E. Deputy Violence Against Mentally Ill Inmates

24

123. In June 2010, Mr. S, who was suicidal, walked out ofhis cell

25 with a strip of bed linen tied around his neck and threatened to kill himself. Mr. S

26 had repeatedly asked deputies to see the psychiatrist, but they had mocked him and .

27 denied him access to mental health care. Custody Assistant Gonzalez shoved Mr. S

.28 back into the cell, turned to his cellmate, Gary Sanchez, and ordered Mr. Sanchez to

-38-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 40 of 83 Page ID #:952

1 "regulate" Mr. S. Mr. Sanchez understood this to mean the deputies wanted him to

2 keep Mr. Sin line by beating him.

3

124. In October 2009, while in the IRC, inmateJonny Johnson saw

4 deputies verbally abusing an elderly.man who was visibly mentally ill. The man

5 was unable to follow the deputies' directions. The deputies began to taunt the man

6 and threw a sandwich at him, hitting him in the head. Mr. Johnson came to the

7 man's defense and told the deputies to stop picking on him. A group of deputies

8 then took Mr. Johnson out of the holding cell. One deputy shoved Mr. Johnson's

9 head against the wall, while two others begari. punching him in the torso, knocking

10 the wind out of him. The deputies then took Mr. Johnson to an area where other

11 inmates were ·handing out bedding and ordered him to help. The deputies told

12 Mr. Johnson that as he handed out the bedding, he had to say to each inmate, "I'm a

13 faggot and the deputies are the bomb."

14

125. In September 2009 in Men's Central Jail, Deputy Navarro

15 stopped Eefrom Jones as he returned .from an attorney visit. Mr. Jones is on

16 psychotropic medication due to a mental illness. Deputy Navarro pulled Mr. Jones

17 to the ground and sat on him as he punched him. Other deputies came over and

18 joined .in the beating, breaking Mr. Jones's shoulder. The deputies shot Mr. Jones

19 with a taser and repeatedly pepper sprayed him in the face, although he told them

20 he had asthma. Approximately two weeks later, after a lieutenant interviewed

21 Mr. Jones about the incident, Deputy Navarro came to Mr. Jones's cell to escort

22 him to the psychologist. In the hallway, Deputy Navarro ordered Mr. Jones to strip

23 naked and bend over. Deputy Navarro yelled that this was his floor, and he would

24 do whatever he wanted. Deputy Navarro shone his flashlight at Mr. Jones's rear
25 and another deputy put his finger in Mr. Jones's anus, as other deputies looked on

26 and laughed. After these incidents, Mr. Jones reported feeling suicidal.

27 "28

-39-

FIRST AMENDED C01V1PLAIN1' FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 41 of 83 Page ID #:953

1

F. Deputy Assaults Against Inmates For Rules Infractions Or

2

Perceived Slights

3

126. Deputies often beat inmates for minor rules infractions or

- 4 perceived.$lights. In December 2010, a deputy in Twin Towers savagely beat

5 Derek Griscavage after Mr. Griscavage showed the deputy his middle finger. First,

6 Deputy Jackson kicked Mr. Griscavage and contorted his shoulders in a manner that

-7 :caused him pain. Deputy Jackson then handcuffed Mr. Griscavage and led him

8 .away from the pod. Shortly thereafter an eyewitness saw a deputy push Mr. ·

9 Griscavage causing him to fall down. Then at least four deputies began to beat him.

10 The deputies knocked Mr. Griscavage unconscious, and he woke up in the hospital

11 with severe lacerations, a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and bruises on his head.

12 Three days later, deputies moved Mr. Griscavage to' the disciplinary segregation

13 uriit for alleged '~assault on a deputy."

14

127. In February 2010, deputies in the jails' Correctional Treatment

15 Center attacked Devon Mannings, an inmate who suffers from a seizure disorder.

16 Mr. Mannings toldthe deputy he "didn't have a date since high school." The

17 . deputy returned with Deputy Campos and slammed Mr. Mannings to the ground.

18 The deputies threw Mr. Maimings's personal letters, pictures, and legal paperwork

19 into the toilet. One deputy stomped on Mr. Mannings's hand with his boot,

20 shattering his knuclde. .The deputies repeatedly kicked Mr. Mannings' s body while

21 yelling, "Stop resisting," even though he was not resisting in any way. The _

22 · deputies handcuffed Mr. Mannings and continued to kick his-body and face. The

23 deputies then shot pepper spray into Mr. Mannings' s face and used a taser on him,

24 which caused Mr. Mannings to have a seizure. ·When Mr. Mannings regained

25 · consciousness after. the seizure, he·saw blood around him on the floor. As a result

26 of the beating, Mr. Mannings suffered extensive bruises and required surgery on the

27 shattered knuckle.. He was interviewed on camera and a senior deputy told Mr.

28 Mannings the incident would be investigated. Although Mr. Mannings was

-40-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 42 of 83 Page ID #:954

1 supposed to be allowed to present his version of events at his disciplinary hearing,

2 he was not permitted to do so. ·

3

G. Deputies' Use Of Inmates As Pawns To Inflict Violence On Other

4

Inmates

5

128. Deputies regularly pit inmates against other inmates, using them

· 6 · as pawns to carry out acts of violence. Deputies sometimes instigate violence

7 between inmates by allowing inmates from rival garigs to have physical access to

8 each other (for example, by opening up their cell doors from the deputy control

9 booth), or by fomenting discord (for example, by mentioning an inmate's gang

10 affiliation to inmates from a rival gang, or stating in front of other inmates that an

11 inmate is a sex offender).

12

129. In March 2011, four inmates beat and sexually assaulted another

13 inmate after an LASD custody assistant opened the door to the victim's cell. The

14· controls to open cell doors are located inside a locked control booth accessible only

15 to deputies and custody assistants. After the cell door was opened, two inmates

16 . went inside and began punching the victim. An inmate witness heard the victim
an 17 screaming for several ininutes. Later that evening, the witness heard inmate say

18 that the victim was going to be sexually assaulted with a broomstick. The victim's

19 cell door was once again opened and four inmates entered, one ofthem carrying a

20 broomstick. The witness heard the victim screaming and saw a broomstick handle

21 with blood on it sticking out ofthe cell. Later, the witness saw the ~ictim being

22 esc01ied away fron1: the cell by a deputy; there was a large amount ofblood on the

23 victim' s pants. ·

24

130. Deputies in Men's Central Jail allowed other inmates to assault

25 Donald Shorts. Mr. Shorts is a former gang member and was frequently the target

26 of assaults from members of his former gang. In June 2010, two inmates who were

27 housed in a different module approached Mr. Shorts's cell. The only way they

28 C<?uld have appe·ared at this cell is if deputies opened the gates.· One ofthe inmates

-41-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 43 of 83 Page ID #:955

· 1 then yelled to the deputies to open Mr. Shorts's cell door. The deputies complied,

2 and the two inmates entered the cell and assaulted Mr. Shorts, beating him with

3 their fists and cutting his face and chest with a shank (a homemade knife). The next

4 day, deputies charged Mr. Shorts with possession of a shank, fighting, and

5 insubordination to staff.

6

131 . In March 2011, a deputy marched Jeremiah Wilkerson past

7 members of a rival gang, telling them, "This is a Norteno. If the door's 'racked'

8 [opened] you know what to do." Mr. Wilkerson believed the deputy was trying to

9 make him a target for an attack in retaliation for an earlier altercation.

10

132. Cameron Saul, a former inmate who now works as a drug

11 treatment counselor, served as a "house mouse" (a liaison between inmates and

12 deputies) for part of his time in Men's Central Jail, and reported to the deputies

13 about inmates who were causing problems. On several occasions, deputies told

14 Mr. Saul that" inmates should "handle the problem," and that Mr. Saul should line

15 up at least two inmates to say that the problem-causing inmate had "slipped in the

16 shower," in case that inmate complained following the attack. Mr. Saul later

17 witnessed other inmates take so-called problem inmates to the back of the module

18 and attack them, without deputies intervening to prevent the attack.

19

133. A deputy placed Mr. T, an inmate who had been in protective

20 custody, in the general population tank; where he was viciously attacked by other

21 inmates. Mr. T suffered contusions on his head, a busted lip, blurry vision, .a

22 swollen ear, ·and severe ervotional trauma.

23

134. Michael Topete heard someone yelling, "Help, they're killing

· 24 me.!" while someone else was yelling "Shut the fuck up!" The next morning,

25 Mr.·Topete heard other inmates say, "They killed the rapist." In an unrelated

26 incident; deputies placed Mr. Topete, who had previously been in protective

27 . custody, in the general population, where he was attacked by other inmates.

28

. -42-

FIRST .AiviENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 44 of 83 Page ID #:956

1

135. On several occasions, deputies placed Rodolpho Mendoza, who

2 was in protective custody, with inmates from the general population, who attacked

3 him.

4

136. In 2009, Therin McGuire witnessed deputies ordering two

5 inmates to beat up a third inmate in MCJ.

6

H. Even Civilians Have Witnessed Deputy Violence Against Inmates

7

137. Unchecked deputy-on-inmate violence in Men's Central Jail and.

.8 Twin Towers has become so pervasive and routine in recent y~ars that deputies

9 carry out savage attacks even in the presence of civilian eye witnesses. Thomas

10 Parker, former Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Los Angeles Field

11 Office noted that the phenomenon of deputies beating inmates in areas visible to

12 civilians suggests that "the culture of deputy violence in the Jails has become so

13 hardened and pervasive that deputies feel emboldened to carry out their attacks

14 even in non~secluded areas."

15

138. In February 2009, Jails Chaplain Paulino Juarez witnessed a

16 beating on the 3000 floor in Men's Central Jail. Chaplain Juarez was visiting

17 ·inmates as part ofhis ministry, when he heard the sounds of someone being beaten.

18 When he walked towards the noises, he saw three deputies, including Deputies

19 Ramirez and Aguilar, in a hallway pounding the face and body of an inmate who

20 stood with his back to the wall. The inmate appeared to be handcuffed; he was

21 neither raising his hands to protect himself,:nor resisting in any way. The deputies

22 punched the inmate until he collapsed face-first on the ground, at which point they ·

23 began kicking him in the head and body. Until this point, the inmate had implored

24 . the deputies to stop. On the ground, he fell silent. Though the inmate was

25 apparently unconscious, deputies continued to punch and kick him, and yelled,

26 "Stop fightmg!"

27

139. A deputy fmally noticed that Chaplain Juarez was watching the

28 attack and made signs to the others to stop the beating. But a call had gone out to

-43-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 45 of 83 Page ID #:957

1 other deputies to join in the attack, and two more·deputies entered the hallway and

2 began to kick the motionless inmate. One deputy stomped on the inmate's back.

3 Those deputies who had noticed Chaplain Juarez motioned to the other deputies to

4 alert them to his presence.

5

140. ·At the end of the beating there was a puddle ofblood some two

6 feet in diameter around the inmate's head. Chaplain Juarez was overwhelmed with

7 ·fear, worried deputies would harm him. Several eyed him in a threatening way.

8 Some said "rat" and "motherfucker" when he passed them in the jail over the next

9 few days. ·

10

141. · Chaplain Juarez wrote a detailed report of the incident, which he

11 gave to a sergeant and his supervisor at the archdiocese, and he was interviewed by

12 the LASD. Two years passed before he heard anything from the LASD about .the

13 beating. In a June 2011 meeting among employees ofthe archdiocese and

14 personnel from OIR, Chaplain Juarez was told that the case had been resolved

15 internally, and that news of the beating had never reached Sheriff Baca. After the

16 meeting with 0~ a representative of SheriffBaca's office contacted the Catholic

17 chaplains to set up a meeting with the Sheriff.

18

142. In July 2011, SheriffBaca told.Chaplain Juarez that the detailed

19 report Chaplain Juarez had written and delivered to the LASD was not included in

20 the LASD's file on the incident. The file that SheriffBaca read aloud from

21 described Chaplain Jwirez·as "exaggerating" the details of the beating. The

22 description of the attack in the LASD file from which Sheriff Baca read aloud

23 seemed to describe a totally different incident from the one Chaplain Juarez had

24 .witnessed: the file said the inmate was schizophrenic and that deputies had to strike

25 him a few times with their fists to get him into his cell. SheriffBaca seemed

26 v.nconcemed, stating simply that "punches are allowed but kicks are not a:llowed in

27 my department."

28

-44-

F~STAMffiNDEDCO~LMNTFOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 46 of 83 Page ID #:958

1

143. In.February 2011, another Jail Chaplain, Chaplain Doe, was

2 wallcing towards the chaplain's office on the third floor of Men's Central Jail, when

3 he saw four or five deputies repeatedly kicking an inmate. The inmate lay

4 motionless, face-down on the ground. His hands appeared to be tucked behind his

5 back, where they remained throughout the attack. The inmate pleaded with the

6 deputies to stop, yelling, "Help me!" After the deputies continuousiy kicked the

7 inmate for between two and three minutes, the deputies ordered Chaplain Doe to

8 .leave the scene. Chaplain Doe was afraid that if he tried to stop the beating or even

9 asked the deputies to stop, they would hurt him. Although Chaplain Doe could no .

10 longer see the beating at this point, he could still hear the "thumping" sounds of the

11 deputies kicking the inmate, and the inmate's cries for help. Eventually the inmate

12 fell silent but the kicks continued for about another minute. Neither LASD nor the

13 OIR ever questioned Chaplain Doe about the incident, even though a sergeant" and

14 numerous deputies were aware that he was an eyewitness to the beating.

15

144. On January 24, 2011, Esther Lirri, the ACLU Jails Project

16 . Coordinator, witnessed the savage beating of an immobile, seemingly unconscious

17 inmate in Twin Towers. At the time, Ms. Lim was meeting with another inmate in

18 the facility's attorney room. When .she heard whatsounded like a fight in the

19 Staging Area, she·looked through the windows dividing-the attorney room and the

20 Staging Area and saw the attack in progress. Deputies Ochoa and Hirsch

21 · repeatedly punched and kneed an inmate who lay face-down and inert on the floor.

22 The inmate was so still that Ms. Lim thought he looked like "a mannequin that was

23 being used as a punching bag." But the deputies persisted in their attack, with one

24 of them shocking the inmate again and again with a taser gun. Although the inmate

25 never moved from his spot on the ground, the deputies repeatedly yelled, "Stop·

26 fighting!" and "Stop resisting!"

27

28

-45-

FIRST AJMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 47 of 83 Page ID #:959

1

145. Scott Budnick, a civilian volunteer who mentors young inmates,.

2 witnessed five deputy-on-inmate beatings at Men's Central Jail over a three-year

3 period.

4

146. In early 2007, Mr. Budnick witnessed an incident in which

5 approximately seven deputies used a taser grm repeatedly on an inmate who was

6 lying on the grormd motionless. When Mr. Budnick told a deputy what he had

7 seen, the deputy replied, "Yeah, we fuck these guys up all the time."

8

147. In 2008, while Mr. Budnick waited outside the classroom where

9 he taught inmates, he saw a deputy pull an inmate out of a line, strip search him in

10 full view of numerous people, and then smash his head into the wall with such force

11 that Mr. Budnick heard a loud crack. The inmate had not attacked or threatened the

12 deputy in any way before the attack.

13

148. ·In December 2008, again while standing outside his classroom,

14 Mr. Budnick saw three deputies stop and strip search an inmate who was walking.

15 down the hall. The deputies forcefully twisted the inmate's arm behind his back

16 and shoved him to the ground. The inmate had not attacked or threatened the

17. deputies in any way.

18

149. In or about July 2009, Mr. Budnick saw several deputies tarmt

19 . an inmate who asked them for directions to the inmate's mo.dule. The ·deputies then

20 twisted the inmate's aim behind his back, grabbed the inmate's head and put it

21 against the wall, and then pushed the inmate's face into the wall.

22

150. In 2009, Mr. Budnick witnessed three deputies kicking and

23 punching an inmate. When the inmate fell down, the deputies continued attacking

· 24 him while he lay on the floor. The deputies repeatedly yelled "Stop resisting!"-

25 even though Mr. Budnick could seethatthe inmate was not moving, much less

26 resisting.

27

151. Several chaplains cautioned Mr. Budnick not to report one

28 incident of abuse that he witnessed, telling him that if he reported the incident, he

-46-

FffiSTAMENDEDCOMYLNNTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 48 of 83 Page ID #:960

1 would no longer be allowed to volunteer. The chaplains said that they refrained

· 2 . from reporting incidents ofabuse out of fear of losing theirjobs. Several civilians

.3 also said that they were afraid to intervene in the deputy-on-inmate attacks they

4 witnessed, for fear if they tried to stop the attacks, deputies would assault them.

5

152. Mr. Budnick did report the July 2009 incident to Sergeant

6 Renfro, who promised to "get into this immediately." Mr. Budnick, however, was

7 never interviewed about what he had observed. He never heard back from the

8 sergeant, or anyone else at the LASD or OIR, about an investigation into his

.9 allegations of deputy violence.

10

I. The Pattern OfDeputv-On-Inmate Violence In The Jails Has Been

.

.

11

Ongoing For At Least A Dozen Years

12

153. In July 2009, after Phillip Westby got into an argument with

13 another inmate in Twin Towers, deputies pulled him out of his c.ell and slammed ·

14 his head into the wall. Deputy O'Hardy handcuffed Mr. Westby and then ·slammed

15 his head into the wall two more times. Deputies O'Hardy and Sandoval then led

16 Mr. Westby into the Outdoor Recreation area where they repeatedly punched him in

17 the ·head, neck, and back, and then threw him to the ground. Mr: Westby worried

18 that his ribs were broken, but did not seek medical help because he feared

19 retaliation from the deputi-es. It took Mr. Westby's bruises almost two weeks to

20 heal.

21

154. In October 2008., Deputy Cinderelli.handcuffed Drequinn

22 Johnson to transport him to al~gal visit. Deputy Cinderelli stopped Mr. Johnson in

· 23 the hallway, near Deputy Grant, who was considered a "rookie" deputy. Deputy

24 Cinderelli said to Deputy Grant, "This is training, this is when you get your first

25 force," meaning his first use of force incident. Deputy Cinderelli then shoved

26 Mr. Johnson against the wall and began punching him. Mr. Johnson, who was still

27 handcuffed, fell to the ground, and Deputy Grant joined Deputy Cinderelli in

28 punching and kicking him. .Two other deputies came over and joined the melee.

-47-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 49 of 83 Page ID #:961

1 The deputies shot Mr. Johnson with ataser twice in the arm. After the incident,

2 Mr. Johnson was unable to see out of his left eye for about two weeks. When .

3 ·deputies interviewed Mr. Johnson about the incident, he said he did not remember

4 what had happened, because he was afraid the deputies would hurt him again.

5

155. In February 2008, after Peter Johnson, who uses a wheelchair,

6 complained about jail conditions, Deputies Ochoa, Reynoso, and Saldivar pulled

7 him offhis bed and kicked and kneed his ribs, back, and neck. The deputies later

8 shot pepper spray into Mr. Johnson's face and caused him to fall out of his

9 wheelchair. The assault occurred in the wheelchair module in Men's Central Jail.

10

156. On or about December 30, 2007, a deputy repeatedly slammed

11 Robert Powell's head into the wall, scratching and bruising his forehead; and left

12 him outside in the cold. At the time, Mr. Powell was 58 years old.

13

157. In June 2006, a deputy assaulted ami raped Frank Mendoza, a

14 gay inmate,.in Twin Towers. Earlier in the day, the same deputy was escorting a ·

15 line of inmates including Mr. Mendoza and said to .them "you all walk like girls."

16 When Mr. Mendoza said to another inmate in the line, "There's a male who's

· 17 unsure ofhis masculinity," the deputy grabbed Mr. Mendoza, shoved him against

18 the wall, and threatened him stating, "You better watch it. I will show you my

19 masculinity. I will come get you." Later that day, when the inillates returned to

20 their pod, Mr. Mendoza's cell door was left open. Shortly after the deputy in the

21 tower outside the pod left his post, the deputy who had previously threatened

22 Mr. Mendoza forced him into his cell, tore off his clothes, threw him to the ground,

23 . shoved a gag in his mouth and raped him. After the rape was over, Mr. Mendoza

24 lay shivering and naked in his cell until another deputy found him and asked what

25 had happened. After Mr. Mendoza reported that he had been raped, the deputy

26 responded, "I do not see anything wrong with you." No LASD personnel ·

27 interviewed Mr. Mendoza about the incident or took any forensic evidence to

28 investigate whether he had been raped. Mr. Mendoza had been arrested for public

-48-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 50 of 83 Page ID #:962

1 drunkenness and was being held in LA County jail on a warrant for failure to

2 appear that later proved to have been issued in error.

3

158. Mario Rocha is a 31 year old who is now pursuing his B.A. at

4 George Washington University in Washington, D.C. On October 10, 2003, he was

5 in jail on a charge that ultimately resulted in a reversed conviction. Mi. Rocha was .

6 in a holding cell being processed for entry into the jail, when he observed a man in

7 · his late 50's or early 60's, who appeared .to be mentally ill, on his hands and knees.

8 Mr. Rocha saw a deputy race over, kick the man in the head, and start punching

9 him. Almost immediately, about four or five other deputies came over and joined

10 in the assault, punching, stomping, and kicking the man while he lay on his

11 stoinach·on the floor, not resisting and not even trying to shield himself from the

. 12 deputies' blows. The assault left the man bleeding from his face and the top ofhis

13 head, with one of his eyes swollen shut.

14

J. Victims Of Deputy Abuse Experience Intimidation And

15

Retaliation

16

159. There is a widespread fear among inmates at Men's Central Jail

17 and Twin Towers of reporting deputy misdeeds to the ACLU, or anyone else, .

18 because deputies regularly retaliate against those who lodge complaints. When

19 inmates complain about mistreatment, deputies respond with punishment: strip

20 searches, body cavity searches, destructive cell shake-downs, confiscation of their

21 belongings, or solitary confinement. If inmates complain ofbeing beaten, the .

22 Sheriffs Department will likely bring false disciplinary charges against them for

23 assault against the deputies who beat them, and in some cases hand them over for

24 criminal prosecution on the bogus charges.

25'

160. In March 2011, after Mr. U told a nurse that a deputy had earlier

26 refused to take him to his medical appointment, the deputy said to Mr. U, "I can

. 27 make it that you slip in the shower next time and need serious medical attention."

28

-49-

FIRST AMENDED COM:PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 51 of 83 Page ID #:963

1

161. In January 2011, two deputies verbally and physically assaulted

2 Shawn Meyers in an elevator for his interactions with ACLU representatives. The

3 deputies slammed Mr. Meyers, who uses a wheelchair, against the wall, and said,

4 "That's your warnirig.''

5

162. In January 2011, Deputy Carbajal overheard inmate Mani Sadri

6 complain about being threatened by another deputy. Deputy Carbajal warned

7 Mr. Sadri not to complain any more to ACLU, and threatened to have other inmates

8 kill him. Deputy Carbajal said, "Don't complain to anyone if you want to make it .

9 out ofhere alive."

10

163. ' In November and December 2010, in.the Twin Towers, deputies

11 repeatedly threatened Mr. V, whose criminal case had received extensive media

12 coverage. .On one occasion, a module officer refused to give Mr. Va blanket,

13 saying he. did not "give them to murderers." Another deputy told him, "[S]o you're

14 [Mr. V]. I can't wait to get you to my floor." When Mr. V was transferred to

15 Men's Central Jail, Deputies Ibarra and another deputy repeatedly asked him what ·

16 he was in jail for, and punched his ribs lintil he answered. They called Mr. V a

17 "piece of shit," told him he would not receive basic necessities such as food, and

18 said they would tum him over "to the Southsiders," which Mr. V understood as a

19 threat to tum:him over to the Southsiders gang. Deputy Ibarra told him not to

20 complain about the incident, or the deputy would "go in your cell and beat you up

21 personally~"

22

164. In June 2010, after Robert Dragusica spoke with the ACLU

. 23 about violence inside Men's Central Jail, deputies began threatening and

24 intimidating him. The behavior ofthe deputies caused Mr. Dragusica to refuse two

25 opportunities to speak with the ACLU again, because he was scared of what the

26 deputies might do. After eventually speaking with the ACLU a second time,

27 deputies sent Mr. Dragusica to disciplinary segregation for a fabricated contraband

28 charge.

-50-

FIRST AMENDED C011PLAJNTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 52 of 83 Page ID #:964

1

165. Deputies sent another inmate to beat Emrnanu~l Benson in

2 May 2009, after he reported that a guard had assaulted him the day before. A

3 deputy opened the door to Mr. Benson's cell in Men's Central Jail and allowed the

4 other inmate to enter. The inmate punched Mr. Benson twice in the face and told

5 him he was sent because Mr. Benson reported the deputy's attack. Mr. Benson did

6 -not request medical treatment in fear of further retaliation.

7

166. In March 2009, deputies severely beat Daysuan Rushing in

8 retaliation for his speaking to the ACLU. After Mr. Rushing spoke with an ACLU

9 representative who visited his row, deputies delayed him as he returned from a

10 court appearance. Mr. Rushing, who was restrained in waistchains, was forced up

11 against a wall with his legs spread. Deputy Zuniga slapped the back of his head

12 twice and then kicked Mr. Rushing's leg, causing him to fall to th~ ground. Deputy

13 - Zuniga and another officer began punching and kicking Mr. Rushing, and hit him

14 repeatedly in the fac e and knees with a flashlight. The deputies then pepper

15 sprayed Mr. Rushing in the face and threw him down a flight of stairs. While

16 Mr. Rushing was laying on the ground bleeding, Deputy Zuniga said, "You fucking

17 whiners, tell this to the ACLU, I dare you." As a result of the beating, Mr. Rushing

18 received stitches on both sides ofhis face.

19

167. Deputies beat Mr. Win Men's Central Jail and he was

20 subsequently refused pain medication that he.was supposed to receive, because he -

21 had complained to the ACLU.

22

168. SheriffBaca and Chief Burns have long been aware of the

23 Department's practice of retaliating against inmates, including a pattern of arresting

24 the victims of staff beatings and initiating their prosecution for assault, without any .

25 meaningful internal -investigation ofthe facts surrounding the incident. In 2010, the

26 ACLU filed in Rutherford a motion for a protective order asking that Defendant and

27 his agents be enjoined from retaliating against inmates for speaking with the

28 ACLU. _That motion was accompanied by n~merous declarations attesting to

-51-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 53 of 83 Page ID #:965

1 incidents ofretallation, including retaliation in the form ofphysical abuse. Despite

2 this knowledge, Defendant and other high ranking officials at the Department have

3 denied that retaliation is· a significant problem and have failed to adequately

4 investigate the problem.. Instead, they have tolerated and encouraged staff to

5 continue to arrest and request prosecution of inmates beaten in the jails. Their

6 · continued acquiescence.in this practice manifests deliberate indifference toward the

7 rights of the Plaintiffs and all other inmates in the Jails.

8

i69. ·In a November 2010 declaration, ChiefBurns made a

9 categorical statement under oath that "every allegation of retaliation" that the

10 ACLU had brought to LASD's attention that the Department had investigated "has

11 been determined to be without merit. ... [T]he Department takes allegations of

12 retaliation and other deputy misconduct extremely seriously and such claims are 13 always thoroughly investigated."42 On information and belief, this statement was

14 false and Chief Burns lmew it was false at the time he made it.

15

170. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Undersheriff

16 Tanaka is also aware of this pattern of retaliation.

17

171. In its October 2011 report, the OIR stated that expectations that

18 custody personnel will not engage in retaliation and the use of excessive force is not

19 "consistently reinforced up the chain of command":

..

20

"[T]he key to preventing questionable force incidents and

21

ensuring the fair treatment of inmates is in the hands ·of

22

line-level supervisors. If sergeants do not actively engage

23

with those they supervise, deputies arid custody assistants

24

too easily can lose sight of ·the expectations the

25

Department places on them and engage in the type of

26

.abusive, retaliatory conduct inmates ·frequently complain

27 42 Decl. of Chief Dennis Burn~ Nov. 5, 2010, at~ 3, filed in Rutherford v. Baca,

75-cv-04111-DDP, 2006 WL .:;065781 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (No. 245) (emphasis in

28 original).

.· ·

.

-52-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 54 of 83 Page ID #:966

1

of. The Department has not always staffed the jails

2

sufficiently to provide the ·necessary level of supervisory .

3

involvement, and its expectation of sergeants is not .

4

consistently reinforced up the chain of command.43

5

K. Supervisory Officials Have Condoned A Pattern Of Inadequate

6

Investigations And Cover·-Ups

7

172. The LASD brushes aside most inmate reports of violence. The

8' Department's apparent indifference to such complaints gives deputies a sense of

9 unchecked autonomy in the way they perform their jobs. Incidents of deputy-on-

10 inmate violence, after nominal or no investigation by LASD, are routinely reported

11 by deputies as an unprov oked inmate-on-deputy assault, and if an inmate complains

12 of being beaten or injured by jail deputies, those complaints are almost universally

13 declared unfounded. Most of these complaints get "resolved" at the lowest levels in

14 . the LASD. Proper reporting procedures are routinely ignored.

· 15

173. Corrections expert Toni V. Bair reviewed the investigative

16 procedures and policies ofthe Los Angeles County Jails and found them to be

17 "grossly substandard."44 For example, during the investigation ofUse ·of Force

18 incidents the supervisor ofthe attacking deputies often interviews the inmate 19· victim, rather than an independent supervisor.45

20

174. This practice is permitted hy LASD·policy, even though it is

21 considered unacceptable and unprofessional by corrections experts.

22 .

175. Moreover, LASD sergeants and lieutenants often permit the very

23 officers accused of assault to be present during the interview of the inmate for the

24 · use of force investigation, a tactic that has the purpose and effect of intimidating the

25 inmate and imp'acting his testimony. See, e.g., the August 2009 incident with

26
43 Los Angeles County Office oflndependent Review supra note 31, at 10. 27 44 Decl. of Toni V. Baii, Se}?t. 27, 2011, at 3, filed in Rutherford v. Baca, 75-cv-
04111-DDP, 2006 WL 3063781 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (No. 294-13). 28 45 Id. ~ 12.

-53-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 55 of 83 Page ID #:967

1 inmate Gordon Grbavac, discussed in Paragraph 87 above. Mr. Bair declared that

2 this practice is "unheard of in professionally conductedinvestigations and

3 interviews," and stated that "It is no wonder that the prisoner frequently ... alters

4 his story so as not to implicate the officer(s) involved in the incident."46

5

176. Even though permitting a deputy who was involved in a force

_6 incident ·with an inmate to be present during the interview ofthe inmate is grossly

7 unprofessional, LASD policy did not forbid this practice until the ACLU's 2011

8 report revealed how frequently involved deputies were present during inmate

9 interviews.

10

177. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that according to an

11 internal LASD memorandum, deputies were "were crafting narratives ' dramatized

12 to justify' force and delaying using weapons such as pepper spray that could end

13 fights 'to dispense appropriate jailhouse justice. "'47

14

178. In 2011, a correctional expert in an inmate's excessive force

15 case against Sheriff Baca noted-both false reports by deputies and the complete

16 absence of an after-the-fact review of a serial cell extraction in Men's Central Jail,

17 in which deputies injured anumber ofinmates.48 The report stated, among other

18 things,-that with respect to the deputies' documentation ofthe use offorce, "some

19 crucial reports are missing, others are substantially incomplete and still other

20 reports are inaccunite or false."49 In addition, the report stated: "One of the most

21 disturbing aspects of this incident is that there was apparently not so much as a

22 cursory review ofthe situation, let alone a serious investigation" by supervisors of

23

24

25 46 Jd. ,-r 16.

-

-

-

47 Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonard, SheriffBaca Was Warned about Jail Pf!JJ.Uties

26 Conduct, Retiree Says, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 2011 [hereinafter Sheri.JJ Baca

fras Warned].

· _

27 4 Expert Report of Jeffrey Schwartz, Feb. 8, 2011, filed in Ramirez v. Baca, CV08-

2813-DSF (C.D. Cal.) (No. 118).

_ _

28 49 Id. at 15.

-·

-54-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 56 of 83 Page ID #:968

. 1 what led to the disturbance onthe cell block and the response that culminated in the

2 serial cell extractions.50

3

179. In its 2011 report, the OIR stated "too often we have found" that

4 "the investigations of force incidents that result in less serious or no apparent .

5 injuries to the inmate" are "lackluster, sometimes slanted, and insufficiently

6 thorough.,51

7

180. Former FBI Executive Thomas Parker concluded that there are

n 8 "systemic institutional actions to cover up" the longstanding pattern of unchecked

9 deputy-on-inmate violence at the jails.

10

181. The institutional cover-ups often take the form of filing criminal

11 charges against inmate victims o{deputy violence. The odds are low of an inmate

12 winning an acquittal against the sworn testimony of deputy witnesses. A criminal

13 conviction of the inmate for his ~'assault" on the deputy - in reality, the deputy's

14 · assault on the inmate - results in a complete immunization ofthe deputy assailants

15 and the Department for from civil liability for the assault.

16

182. In January 2011, James Parker, an inmate whom ACLU Jails

17 Project Coordinator Esther Lim witnessed being brutally beaten and tasered by

18 Deputies Ochoa and Hirsch, was subsequently charged with battery against a peace

19 officer and resisting a peace officer. For additional examples of trumped-up

20 charges filed against victims of deputy abuse, see, e.g., Paragraphs 51 - 57

21 (Macario Garcia), 112 (Mr. M), and 122 (Evan Tutt) above.

22

183. The Department has even charged visitors to the Jails in this

23 fashion. As discussed in Paragraph 66, Gabriel Carillo was assaulted by deputies

24 while visiting his brother in Men's Central Jail in February 201 L In April, 2001,

25 he was charged with resisting and officer and battery.52 The District Attorney later

26

50 Jd. at 20. 27 51 Los Angeles County Office of Ind~endent Review, supra note 31, at 4.

52 The People v. Gabriel M Carillo, BA3 81607 (Los Artgeles County Superior

28 Court).

·

·

-55-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 57 of 83 Page ID #:969

1 dismissed the charges against him after the ACLU issued its 2011 Annual Report

2 and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the FBI was investigating deputy-on-

3 inmate abuse in the jails.

4

184. In contrast, LASD frequentiy chooses not to forward tci the

5 .District Attorney information about deputies who have been disciplined or even

6 terminated for using excessive force against inmates. As the Los Angeles Times

7 reported: "In several cases in recent years, deputies who were disciplined or even

· 8 fired for abusing inmates escaped criminal scrutiny ·because Sheriffs Department

9 officials chose not to give the evidence to the district attorney's office, opting to.

10 handle the cases internally."53

11

L. Defendant Has Actual Knowledge Of Deputy Violence And Has

12

Failed To Take Reasonable Measures To Avert It

13

185. Rampant violence at the Jails has resulted from a failure of

14 leadership at the top level of the Department. Such a pervasive, deeply-entrenched,

15 and notorious pattern of excessive force could not have continued unabated over a

16 period of many years without a code of silence .on the part of front-line and

17 supervisory staff, combined with management staffs failure to require 18 accountability, and thei:r;- engaging in outright cover-up.54

19

186. ·Despite overwhelming evidence of the culture of deputy-on-

20 inmate violence, SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, and ChiefBums have

21 stubbornly refused.to acknowledge the problem. They and their spokespeople have

22 publicly taken the position that victims' allegations have been investigated

23 thoroughly and found to be false, and they have attacked the credibility of civilian

24 witnesses to deputy violence. On information and belief, they have routinely

25 53 Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi, D.A. in the Dark on Jail Probes, Los Angeles

26

Times, Dec. 4, 2011. 54 "The only way in which an established J?attern of inappropriate use of force can

be maintaiJ:?-ed is through a combination ol a code of sifence on the part of fr~nt-line 27 and supervisory staff and a management staffposture oflack of accountab1hty or

o~trigfit cover-up." Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Fixing Use-of-Force Problems, American

28 Jails ~2010).

.

·

·

·

-5-6-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 58 of 83 Page ID #:970

1 dismissed·inmates' complaints of staff beatings, even wh~n the deputies allegedly

2 involved had failed to report a use of force and the inmate was .seriously injured;

3 when the inmate's injuries were obviously more serious than the staff accounts of

4 their actions would suggest; and when the same deputies reported essentially the

5 same scenarios over and over to describe incidents in which different inmates were

6 injured.

7

187. Sheriff Baca has failed or refused to hold accountable high-

8 ranking supervisors in the face of significant nonfeasance and malfeasance by these

9 supervisors and by the officers they oversee. Both Chief of Custody Operations

10 Bums and Undersheriff Tanaka remain in the positions they held, or have been

11 promoted, despite the epidemic of deputy on inmate abuse in the jails that Sheriff

12 Baca is aware occurred over the past years.

13

188. With rare exception, deputies whose misconduct is brought to

14 the attention of supervisory personnel continue to work With inmates in

15 Department-operated jails without any substantial disciplinary (:lction being taken

16 against them.

17

189. The fact that physical abuse by officers remains unchecked and

18 unrestrained leads the staff to believe that inmates may be beaten with impunity.

19 SheriffBaca's actions and omissions have created the perception among high-

20 ranking supervisors in the Sheriffs Department that a supervisor who turns a blind

21 eye towards evidence of staff misuse of force and fails to investigate incidents in

22 which ~ates· are injured by staff will suffer no damage to his or her career.

23

190. In September 2011, the release ofthe ACLU's annual report on

24 the Los Angeles County Jails, detailing some seventy recent instances of extreme

25 deputy violence against inmates and other serious abuse of inmates, and press

26 reports of an FBI probe involving..deputy violence in the Jails, set off a media
27 storm. SheriffBaca.responded by dismissing ari.y possibility of a systemic problem,

28

-57-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 59 of 83 Page ID #:971

1 and with wildly inconsistent and self-serving statements about his lack of

2 awareness ofthe problem.

3

191. SheriffBaca first flatly denied the existence ofa systemic

4 · · problem. Nicole Nishida, one of the sheriffs spokespersons, said that the

5 department thoroughly investigated all complaints of abuse that it received and that

6 most were unsubstantiated.55

7

192. As public criticism ofSheriffBaca continued to mount, and new

8 allegations surfaced, the Sheriff acknowledged there were widespread problem but

9 claimed that he had not been aware of its .existence. As reported on October 10,

10 2011, Defendant Baca stated: "We are going to look into this and we welcome

11 anyone to look ir).to it as well." He contended that "[t]he widespread problem can't .12 be defmed until.we know what all the is~ues are."56

13

193. On October 16, 2011, the Sherifftold the Los Angeles Times that

14 his command staff occasionally left him in the dark about the Jails' problems. "I

15 wasn't ignoring the jails. I just didn't know," Baca said. "People can say, 'What

16 the hell kind of leader is that?' The truth is I should've known. So now I do

17 know."57

18

194. Finally, in early December 201 1, it came to light that Sheriff

19 Baca and other senior officials in LASD had in fact known of the pattern of

20 widespread deputy violence in the Jails for years. Robert Olmsted, a retired top

21 LASD official with supervisory authority over Men's Central Jail, had repeatedly

22 informed Sheriff Baca of such problems. The Los Angeles Times reported on

23 December 1:

24

A top commander in Los Angeles County's jail system

25 55 Jennifer Medina, Report Details Wide Abuse in Los Angeles Jail System, N.Y.

Times, Se_Rt. 28, 2011.

.

26 56 Jennifer Medina, Pressed, SheriffAgrees to Jails Inquiry, N.Y. Times, Oct. 10,

2011.

.

.

27 57 Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi;Baca Says He Was out ofTouch with County's

Jails, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 16, 2011 [hereinafter Baca Says He Was out of

28 Touch].

·

-58-

FIRST AMENDED CO:MPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 60 of 83 Page ID #:972

1

said he warned Sheriff Lee Baca ·and other senior officials

2

last year about deputies using excessive force against

3

inmates but was ignored until the problems grew into a

4

· public scandal.

5

In an interview with The Times, Robert Olmsted said he

6

. tried to raise red flags about shoddy investigations that

7

allowed deputies to escape scrutiny for using force. He

8

also voiced concern about deputies forming aggressive

9

cliques.

10

He alleged that two top officials rebuffed him, telling him

11

it was impossible to change the deputy culture in the

12

downtown L.A. lockup, an antiquated -facility that houses

13

some ofthe county's most dangerous inmates.

14

Olmsted, a 32-year department veteran who retired late

15

last year, had commissioned several corifidential audits

16

and internal memos that found serious problems with

17

excessive force and iri.adequate supervision in the jail. He

18

said top sheriff's officials seemed not to take his·concerns

19

seriously.

20

21

"It's frustrating knowing that this never, ever needed to

22

have occurred," Olmsted said. "There was a systematic

23

failure of leadership."

24

25

Olmsted said he twice approached Baca to discus-s the

. 26

problems at Men's Central Jail. The first time was at _a

27

department barbecue. .Baca, he said, told him he would

28

be in touch but never followed up.·

-59-

F~STAMENDEDCON.WLMNTFOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 61 of 83 Page ID #:973

1

Months later, Olmsted said, he spoke to the sheriff at a

2

charity food giveaway. The event occurred soon after a

3

group of Men's Ceritral Jail deputies had been caught

4

fighting each other at an .off-duty, department holiday

5

party. After the brawl, sheriffs officials said some ofthe

6

deputies had formed ·a clique whose members flashed

7

gang-like hand signs.

8

Olmsted said he told the sheriff he wanted to discuss how

9

to improve supervision at the jail to prevent similar

10

problems in the futu~e. Baca, he said, agreed to talk but

11

again never followed through.58

12

195. Commander-Olmsted raised the issue ofunchecked violence not

.

.

13 only with Defendant Baca but also with Tana.k~:

14

Bums, he said, told him the jail' s culture could not be

. 15

changed. Frustrated, Olmsted said he took his concerns in

16

the summer of 2010 to Asst. Sheriff Marvin 0.

: 17

Cavanaugh, who was sympathetic but told him the same

18

thing. He also spoke to then-Asst. Sheriff Paul Tanaka,

19

who as undersheriff now runs the day-to-day operations

20 .

of the department.59

21

196. Witness LA reported: "In a series of interviews with the LA

22 Justice Report, Olmsted [stated]- ... ' [T]he real problem is how departmental

23 leadership allowed this jail situation to occur."' "The problems inside the jail were

24 ignored by the Sheriff's command staff. I went to [Custody Chief Dennis] Bums,

25 [Undersheriff Paul] Tanaka. And I went to Lee Baca. I told them I needed help

26 trying to corral this situation and I was ignored."60

27

58 Sherif!Baca 59 ld.

Was

Warned, .

supra note 42. .

·

28 60 Matthew Fleischer, Dangerous Jails, Part 2: Ignoring the Warnings, WitnessLA,

-60-

· FIRST .AlVIENDED COMPLAlNT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 62 of 83 Page ID #:974

. 1

197. Commander Olmsted also found, as early as 2009, that reported

2 use of force was not being properly investigated and the official paperwork

3 reporting incidents of deputy force at Men's Central Jail- the so-called "use of

4 force packets" - ·were not being properly prepared:

5

198. Olmsted found that; not only were many force packages not

6 being investigated, the-ones that were cleared were often given only cursory ·

7 examination. Ohnsted had one qfhis lieutenants pull30 force reports at random ·

8 that were in various stages of oversight. A second lietenant [sic], Mark McCorkle,

9 analyzed them. All were either signed off on, or were on the verge ofbeing

10 cleared. Yet of that group of30, 18 uses of force were questionable in nature and

11 conceivably fell outside of department policy.61 Commander Ohnsted raised the

12 issue of inadequate investigations of use of force with command staff, including

13 Bums and Tanaka- all of whom ignored the issue. Olmsted took McCorkle's

14 finding regarding inadequate.,use of force investigations up the chain of command .

15 to Custody Chief Dennis Bums, Assistant Sheriff in charge of custody, Marvin

16 Cavanaugh, and Paul Tanaka. No action was taken.62

17

"19.9. In response to these latest revelations from Commander

18 Olmsted, SheriffBaca, rather than.accepting responsibility, publicly laid the blame

19 on Commander Olmsted for not solving the problem. Commander Olmsted didn't

20 need to "ask permission to solve the problem," Baca said.63 The Los Angeles Times

21 commented, on December 2, 2011:

22

·Never mind that a quasi-military organization like the

23

Sheriffs Department is all about following the chain of

24

command. ·Or that Baca is trying to have it both ways;

25 ·

suggesting that his command staff failed him by shielding

26

Dec. 1, 2011 (emphasis omitted).

27 611d.

.

62 Jd. 28 63 SheriffBaca Was Warned, supra note 42.

-61-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAfNT FOR fNJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 63 of 83 Page ID #:975

1

him from the tnith, and at the same time blaming Olnisted

2

for not taking care of the problem on his own.

3

How many times can Baca plead ignorance?· This is just

4

the latest in a series of objectionable responses that calls

5

into question whether he is capable of running, let alone

6

reforming, the nation's largest jail system.64

7

200. According to Commander Olmsted, when he took the evidence

8 of inadequate investigations of use of force incidents to Chief Bums, ChiefBums

9 did not deny there was a problem, but told Olmsted that the jail's culture ·could riot

10 be changed.65

11

201. Despite their knowledge ofthe serious problem of improper and

12 excessive use of force in the jails, Defendant and other high ranking officials at the

13 Department have repeatedly failed to take reasonable steps to_address the problem.

14

202. Defendant and other high railking officials at the Department

15 have failed to put in place adequate policies governing use of force. The

16 Department's policies are grossly lacking in specificity about typical force

17 scenarios that are likely to arise in the jails and the proper way for custody

18 personnel to handle those situations.

19

203. The force policies rem:airi severely inadequate even after the few

20 changes to force poliCies that the Defendant and other high ranking officials at the

21 Department have implemented since the release ofthe ACLU's 2011 report.

22

204.. The insufficiency of the force policies makes it almost

23 impossible to train deputies adequately on the proper use offorce.

24

205 . SheriffBaca has failed to install cameras in Twin Towers and

25 Men's Central Jail, even though he has stated as far back as 2005 that he planned to

26

64 Editorial, Baca 's Jails Are Baca 's Problem: Sheri(!Lee Baca Should Stop
27 Blaming OJhers and Take Responsibility for Fixing E.A. County 's Jails, Los

-~geles T1mes, Dec.· 2, 2011.

28 65 SheriffBaca Was Warned, supra note 42.

.

-62-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 64 of 83 Page ID #:976

1 install security cameras in Men's Central Jail.66 In 2011, after the ACLU released

2 its Annual Report on abuse in the jails, SheriffBaca admitted that scores of cameras ·

3 that were supposed to have been installed in Men's Central Jail had been sitting in

4 boxes for a year or more.67

5

206. Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, and Chief Bums have failed

6 to implement a system for identifying, logging, and tracking incidents of use of

7 force by deputies and complaints by inmates ofuse of force by deputies in the LA .

8 County jail.

9

207. For the past five years, the Los Angeles Police Department has·

10 had a computerized system, TEEMS II, capable of both tracking use of force

11 information and providing early warning by identifying officers involved in

12 multiple use of force incidents. Even though LAPD and numerous other law

13 enforcement agencies have such tracking and early warning systems, on

14 information and belief, Defendant and the Department either have not designed

15 their Facility Automated Tracking System (F.A.S.T.) or Personnel Performance

16 Index to perform this function for deputies working in the Custody Division, or

17 they have failed to obtain this information from orie or both systems, to reduce the

18 number of incidents of excessive or unnecessary use of force in the Jails. Nor have

19 they created a system that tracks inmate complaints about use offorce by deputies

20 in the jails.

21

208. Bums·has been and is aware ofthe failures ofthe Department's

.22 tracking systems. When the ACLU sought a court order in 2010 requiring that

23 complaints of retaliation, including identifying the officer(s) who are the subject of

24 such allegations be tracked in F.A.S.T, Ch~efBurns submitted a sworn declaration

25 to the Court stating, "the FAST was not designed properly to track information

26 about deputy misconduct."

27 66 L.A. Jail Called Deadly, Outdated, supra note 19.
28 67 Baca Says He Was out ofTouch, supra note 52.

-63-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 65 of 83 Page ID #:977

1

209. A tracking system of this kind is a basic tool for ensuring that all

2 incidents.of use of force are properly reviewed and investigated and are commonly

3 used by large jail systems.· The lack of such a·system makes it difficult to compile

4 the essential data to detect and address problematic patterns ofuse of force as they

5 develop .

6

210. ShefiffBaca, Tanaka, and Bums have failed to develop and

7 implement a policy of zero-tolerance for deputy violence and abuse of inmates.

8 Then-Assistant Sheriff Tanaka was informed as far back as 2006 by the Captain of

9 Men's Central Jail that there was a problem with improper use of force by deputies

10 at Men's Central Jail. At that time, Captain Clark also expressed concern about

11 deputy gangs in the jail to Tanaka~ When.Captain Clark proposed to set up a

12 rotation system to attempt to break up the deputy gangs, Tanaka transferred Clark .

13 out ofMen;s Central Jail.

14

211. When Assistant Sheriff Tanaka informed Mr. Olmsted that he

15 was being made the Captain in charge ofMen's Central JaH, Tanaka told Olmsted

16 . that use of force was a problem in the jail.

17

212. When SheriffBaca promoted Olmsted to Commander in the

18 Custody Division, then Assistant Sheriff Tanaka arranged for Dan Cruz to become

19 the Captain at MCJ, even though it was well-known within the LASD that Cruz had

20 been transferred out ofthe Lennox Station for being about 18 months behind on his

21 paperwork, including his review of use-of-force complaints. Tanaka nonetheless
a 22 placed him in facility where he knew there were problems with use of force.

23

213. Although SheriffBaca and other high ranking officials at the .

24 Department have been repeatedly warned that use of force by deputies is

25 disproportionately directed at inmates with mental illtiess, the Defendant has failed

26 to implement numerous recommendations on training and other appropriate steps to

27 reduce force against mentally ill inmates made by experts.

28

-64-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 66 of 83 Page ID #:978

.1

214. SheriffBaca and other high ranking officials at the Department

2 have abjectly failed to develop policies that address the problem of endemic

3 brutality in the Jails. Policies regarding use of force, investigationofuse of force,

4 discipline for deputies who have used excessive force or failed to report use of

5 force, supervisors who have mishandled investigations of force, and training of

6 deputies and supervisors all fail to meaningfully address the problem. When

7 allegations of deputy violence arise, they are infrequently investigated, and deputies

8 are rarely disciplined. The Defendant has failed to require the Department to track

9 incidents·of violence, even though systems for doing so are readily available and

10 commonly used. In this way, the Defendant has fostered a pattern and practice of

11 deputy violence against inmates, which places inmates at a significant, ongoing risk

12 of serious and irreparable injury. Deputies and supervisors alike have come believe

13 . that committing abuse (or failing to investigate abuse) will have absolutely no

14 impact on one's career. As a result, physical abuse by deputies continues

15 unchecked. The persistent failure or refusal of SheriffBaca and the other high

16 ranking officials to supervise deputies properly or take action to curb the

17 misconduct demonstrates the Defendant's deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs'

18 right to reasonable protection from harm.
19 v. CLASS ACTIONALLEGATIONS

20

215. Plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin bring this action, pursuant to

21 · Federal Rules of Civil Procedtire 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of all present and

22 future imnates confined in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles: Men's

23 Central Jail, Twin Towers, and the IRC. Inmates assigned to Men's Central Jail

24 and Twin Towers spend some period oftime in the IRC, ·and it is commonplace for

25 inmates to be transferred back and forth between Men's Central Jail and Twin

26 Towers. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent meets the requirements of Rule

27 23 as follows:

28

-65-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 67 of 83 Page ID #:979

1

A. NUMEROSITY

2

216. The class meets the numerosity requirement ofRule 23(a)(1).

3 There are more than 4,000 inmates confined within Men's Central Jail and about

4 2,800 inmates in the Twin Towers at any given time. Between 500 to 1,000 men

5 are processed into or out of the jails through the IRC on any given day. The

6 membership of the class continuously changes, renderingjoinder ofall members

7 impracticable. The inclusion within the class of future inmates in the downtown

8 Jail Complex also makes joinder of all members impracticable.

9

B. COMMONALITY

10

217. The class meets the commonality requirement ofRule 23(a)(2).

11 Questions of law and fact presented by the named plaintiffs are common to other ·

12 members ofthe class. The common contentions that unite the claims of the class

13 inciude the following:

14

(A) There is an unlawful pattern and practice at the Jails of

15 excessive physical violence used by Sheriffs deputies against inmates.

16

(B) There is an unlawful pattern and practice at the Jails of

17 Sheriffs deputies enlisting and encouraging inmates to carry out savage attacks

18 against other inmates and promoting inmate-on-inmate violence.

19

(C) There is an unlawful pattern and practi~e at the Jails of

20 Sheriffs deputies using violence and threats of violence to coerce false statements

21 from inmates, to cover up unlawful violence and to intimidate inma:tes and thereby
'
22 prevent inmates from making complaints or otherwise reporting abuse at these

23 facilities.

24

(D) SheriffBaca,.UndersheriffTanaka, Assistant Sheriff

25 Rhambo, and ChiefBurns are aware of and deliberately indifferent to the use of

26 excessive force by correctional officers and the enlisting and encouraging of

27 inmates to carry out savage attacks in the Jails. They acquiesce in and condone this

28 conduct by failing to investigate it, failing to take reasonable measures to end the

-66-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 68 of 83 Page ID #:980

1 culture of deputy violence that fosters it, failing to punish deputies who engage in -

2 it, protecting those deputies from criminal prosecution, and rewarding such deputies

3 for their conduct.

4

c. TYPICALITY

5

218. Plaintiffs meet the typicality requirement ofRule 23(a)(3),

6 since, as alleged below, the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical ofthose ofthe class.

7

219. Plaintiff.Alex Rosas, twenty-four years old, is currently housed

8 in Twin Towers.68 On July 22, 2011, Mr. Rosas witnessed a group of deputies,

9 - including Deputies Luviano, GU:errerro, Bearer; and Ibarra, severely beating a non-

10 resisting inmate, Arturo Fernandez, who was clad only in boxer shorts and had his

11 hands cuffed behind his back. As the deputies pwnmeled the handcuffed

-12 Fernandez, they shouted that he was resisting, although he-was not. The deputies

·13 · then dragged Fernandez away.

14

220. An hour after Mr. Rosas witnessed the beating, Deputies Ibarra

15 and Luviano came to his ·cell and warned him, "You better not say an-ything."

-16 Mr. Rosas told the deputies that he had not seen anything. Mr. Rosas was afraid

17 that they would hurt him or arrange for other inmates to attack him.

18

221. A few days later~ Deputies Ibarra and Luviano again came to

19 Mr. Rosas's cell and threatened him not to say anything. Terrified that something

20 would happen to him, Mr. Rosas told them again that he had not seen anything.

21 .

222. On August 9, 2011, Deputies Bearer and Ibarra came to

22 Mr. Rosas's cell and told him to -"cuff up," meaning to allow himselfto be

23 · handcuffed. When Mr. Rosas asked the deputies·why he needed to be cuffed, they

24 responded that another inmate had given them a tip that Mr. Rosas had "something"

25 in his cell and that they were "going to toss up your cell." The deputies handcuffed ·

. 26 him and sat him outside in the main hallway.

27 68 LASD has transferred all Men's Central Jail inmates who submitted affidavits t~ .

. 28

·

t5he2C01o1u.r.t

in

RutherJ~~'ord

v.

Baca

to

a

singl-e
. .

unit

in

the
.

Twin

Towers,
-

as
.

of October

'

.

.

-67-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR IN1UNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 69 of 83 Page ID #:981

1

223. A few minutes later the deputies moved Mr. Rosas away from

2 the door and out of the sightline of other inmates. They told him they had found a

3 "slicer" - a razor fashioned into a weapon- in his cell. Mr. Rosas told the deputies

4 that he had not altered any razors and that the weapon did not belong to him.

5 Deputy Luviano asked Mr. Rosas, "Why are you lying to my deputies?" Mr. Rosas 6 responded~ "I'm not lying, sir." The deputies punched him in the back ofthe head

7 four or five times and told Mr. Rosas he would be going to the "hole" - disciplinary

8 solitary confinement- for possessing the slicer.

9

224. Later, deputies carne to Mr. Rosas's cell with the disciplinary

10 paperwork. They told Mr. Rosas that if he admitted on the form that he had the

J 1 slicer they would "make this easier" for him and would not "add on any charges."

12 He understoodtpis to mean that if he lied and said he possessed a slicer then he

13

would

not

b. e

taken

to disciplinary .

segregation

and

the

deputies

would

not '

falsel.y

14 charge him with assault on an officer. Mr~ Rosas refused to sign the paperwork,

15 and the deputies escorted him to the hole.

16

225. Mr. Rosas asked Deputy Reza for a complaint form, butDeputy

17 Reza refused to give him one. Mr. Rosas told the deputy he would ask the

18 afternoon shift deputies for a complaint form and Deputy_Reza responded that he

19 would tell the afternoon shift not to give him the form. When Mr. Rosas asked the

20 afternoon shift deputies for the complaint form, they too refused to give him a form.

21

226. Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, 29 years old, is in an inmate in ·

22 Los Angeles County Jails. He is currently housed in Twin Towers.

23

227. On July 22,2011, when Mr. Goodwin was housed at Men's

24 Central Jail on the 3000 floor, he saw several deputies running towards a row of

25 cells. He saw deputies leading inmate Arturo Fernandez in handcuffs and then

26 punching him and slamming him to the ground. Mr. Fernandez fell on his face,_

27 with his hands cuffed behind his back. Several deputies, including Deputies

·28 Luviano and Ibarra, punched Mr. Fernandez on his lower back and the sides of his

-68-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 70 of 83 Page ID #:982

1 torso. Another deputy kneed Mr. Fernandez in the back, as ifpressing the air out of

2 his lungs. Mr. Fernandez yelled that he couldn't breathe. The deputies told him to _

3 "Shut the fuck up!" After the group of deputies punched and kicked Mr. Fernandez

4 countless times, Deputies Ibarra and Luviano escorted Mr. Fernandez out of the

5 housing module.

6

228. On August 10, 2011, Deputy Luviano came to Mr. Goodwin's

7 - cell and told him to "cuff up." When Mr. Goodwin asked why, Deputy Luviano

8 · responded that it was because he could "do whatever the fuck I want" and that

9 Mr. Qoodwin "got no rights." Deputy Luviano handcuffed Mr. Goodwin behlnd

10 his back and escorted him to the hallway.

11

. 229. In the hallway, Deputy Luviano pushed Mr. Goodwin against

12 the wall and kicked his legs open. Correctional Assistant Flannigan then

13 approached and kicked Mr. Goodwin 's ankle and punched his lower back. Deputy

14 Luviano punched Mr. Goodwin in the back of the head. Other inmates exclaimed

15 that they saw what Deputy Luviano as doing. Custody Assistant Flannigan yelled

16 down the row; "You saw.that? Whatcha ·gonna do about it?" Deputy Luviano and

17 Correctional Assistant Wendlent then pulled Mr. Goodwin out ofthe view of other.

18 inmates. Deputy Luviano repeatedly punched Mr. Goodwin on the back ofthe

19 head, even when other deputies walked into the area.

20

230. Deputy Luviano then moved around Mr. Goodwin and began to

21 punch him repeatedly in the jaw. Mr. Goodwin sank to the ground and tried to roll

22 away from Deputy Luviano. Deputy Luviano continued to punch him in the jaw,

23 and other deputies then joined in the beating.

24

231. The deputies continued to beat Mr. Goodwin until Deputy

25 Ujolla and Sergeant Soto entered the room and escorted him away. Mr. Goodwin

26 told Deputy Bearer and Sergeant Soto that the deputies had beaten him.

27 Mr. Goodwin was later interviewed on camera and repeatedhis account ofthe

28

-69-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 71 of 83 Page ID #:983

1 incident. During the interview, Mr. Goodwin felt that Sergeant Soto was trying to

2 misstate the facts and put words in his mouth to make it appear that he was lying.

3

232. Deputies took Mr. Goodwin to the medical clinic, .where he

4 reported that he was experiencing pain in his jaw and back molars. Medical staff

5 told Mr. Goodwin there was swelling in his head, yet he received no medical

6 treatment. Later that night, Mr. Goodwin lost a back molar that had been knocked

7 loose during the attack.

8

233. On August 12, 2011, staff charged Mr. Goodwin with

9 possession of contraband, insubordination and causing a disturbance, profanity

10 toward staff and inmates, and refusal to follow orders.

n

D. ADEQUACY.OF REPRESENTATION

12

234. Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and thus meet the.

13 ·requirements of Rule 23(a)(4). Rosas and Goodwin are presently incarcerated

14 within the Jails at issue in this case, they have rio conflict of interest with other

15 class members, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. ·

16 They are represented by highly qualified ·and experienced counsel: The ACLU

17 National Prison Projed, the ACLU of Southern California, and Paul Hastings, LLP,

18

as

alleged
.

bel. ow.

19

235. The ACLU National Prison Project and the ACLU of Southern

20 California already serve as class cotinsel for all prisoners in the Los Angeles

21 . County Jails in Rutherford v. Baca, a case concerning over-crowding in the Jails.

22 . The ACLU also serves as court-appointed monitor in that case, and over a period of

23 more than five years has conducted weekly or bi-weekly monitoring tours of Men's

24 · Central Jail. Class counsel has sought to obtain discovery on deputy-on-inmate

25 abuse in Rutherford and moved to compel production of that discovery after the

26 Defendant refused to tum it over. The Court has never ruled on that motion to

27 compel, which was submitted in December 2010. Class counsel has also informed

28 the Court ofits intent to litigate the issue of deputy violence in an evidentiary

-70-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 72 of 83 Page ID #:984

--

1 hearing in Rutherford, but the Court has questioned whether the scope of the 2 Rutherford judgment encompasses that issue. The ACLU is thus uniquely well

3 acquainted with the issues of deputy violence in the Jails and well equipped to 4 litigate those claims. Their work in Rutherford on the issues of deputy violence and

5 overcrowding helped trigger a broad criminal investigation by the FBI and the U.S. 6 Attorney's office, and was a key factor in the decision of the County Board of " 7 Supervisors in November 2011 to convene a Commission to study the causes of 8 deputy violence in the Jails.

9

236. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Margaret Winter is the Associate

10 Director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

11 Since 1973, the ACLU National Prison Project has been the only organization

12 litigatmg prisoners' rights cases throughout the nation. Attorney Winter has 13 litigated prisoners' rights cases, most of them class actions, in federal courts in

14 Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Idaho, Maryland,

15 Delaware, and Vermont, and in the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh 16 Circuit Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. She has argued and won a

17 prisoner's rights case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 2007, Winter has served as

18 co-lead class counsel for all the inmates in Los Angeles County Jails in 19 · Rutherford v. Baca

20

237. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Peter Eliasberg is the Legal Director

21 ofthe ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Since its founding in 1923, the 22 ACLU of Southern California has been litigating a broad variety of civil rights

23 cases, including prisoners' rights cases. Attorney Eliasberg has been lead counsel
24 or co-lead counsel ill numerous federal civil rights class actions in the Central
25 District of California and has been lead counsel in civil rights matters before the

26 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court,

27 and the United States Supreme Court, and has argued a case before the U.S. ·28

-71-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR , INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ·

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 73 of 83 Page ID #:985

1 Supreme Court. Since 2009, Eliasberg has served as co-lead class counsel for all

2 the inmates in Los Angeles County Jails in Rutherford v. Baca.

3

238. Paul Hastings LLP is an international law fum with 18 offices.

4 Paul Hastings cunently has 1,029 attorneys worldwide~ including 148 attorneys in

5 the Los Angeles office. Paul Hastings is a global law firm and has sufficient

6 resources to adequately represent the class. Paul Hastings has been recognized

7 widely for its work on pro bono cases. The American Lawyer recently ranked Paul

8 Hastings second in the nation in the American Lawyer Pro Bono Report of2011. In

9 2010, the fum was honored as the Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year by Public

10 Counsel, the world's largest pro bono·public interest law firm. The Los Angeles

11 office ofPaul Hastings was awarded the 2010 Pro Bono Service Award by the

12 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, as the top pro bono law firm in Los Angeles.

13 Paul Hastings has extensive experience in class action litigation, including class

14 action lawsuits involving civil rights. In 2009, Paul H~stingsworked with the

15 ACLU of Southern California in a civil rights class action which rectified

16 · unconstitutional and unsafe conditions in an immigration detention center. Paul

17 Hastings has also recently argued and won a civil rights case before the U.S.

18 Supreme Court.

19

·239. Plaintiffs meet the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), as the

20 Defendant has acted, or omitted to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class,

21 thereby making injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.

22 VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMlNISTRATIVE REMEDIES

23

240. Both of the named Plaintiffs have exhausted available

24 administrative remedies.

25

241. On-August 24,2011, Mr. Goodwin filled out an inmate ·

26 complaint form stating, among other things, "On August 24, 2011, Deputy Luviano

27 and Correctional Assistant Flannigan and other deputies beat me up." The form

28

-72-.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA1NT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 74 of 83 Page ID #:986

1 was delivered that day to both Watch Commander Limon and Deputy Alvarez at

2 Men's Central Jail.

3

242. No one from LASD has ever provided Mr. Goodwin with a

4 response to the complaint or informed him that-the LASD was seeking an

5 additional 15 days to complete its investigation of the complaint.

6

243. On August 24, 2011 Mr. Rosas filled out an inmate complaint

7 form stating, among other things,. that on "8/9/20 11 Deputy Luviano punched me,"

8 which was provided to Watch CommanderLimon and Deputy Alvarez at Men's

9 Central Jail.

10

244. A few days later.Senior Deputy Lauderdale approached

11 Mr. Rosas, showed him the complaint form and asked him what it was about. At

12 no point has any LASD personnel provided Mr. Rosas a response to the complaint

13 or informed him that the LASD was seeking an additional 15 days to complete its

14 ·investigation of the complaint.

15

245. LASD policy provides that the department shall investigate all

16 · complaints within 15 days of their being filed unless the department notifies the

17 inmate in writing that it is seeking an additional 15 days to complete the

18 investigation. Both Plaintiffs filed their complaints more than 90 days ago without

19 receiving any response from LASD personnel.

20 VII. CLAilVIS FOR RELIEF

21

A. Eighth Amendment To The United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C.

22

Section 1983

23

246. By reason of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 245,

24 supra, plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin, and the class they represent, were deprived .

25 and continue to be deprived by the Defendant of their rights, under the Eighth ·and

26 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to due process of law

27 and to be free from gratuitous and excessive force, threats of gratuitous and

28 excessive force, degrading and sadistic treatment.

-73-

FIRST AMENDED COiviPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 75 of 83 Page ID #:987

.-.

1

247. The failures of SheriffBaca, Tanak~, and Bums to take

2 appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality iri l\!Ien's Central Jail,

3 the Twin Towers, and the IRC, as described in this First Amended Complaint,

4 constitutes deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' basic needfor reasonable protection

.

.

5· from harm and violates Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual

6 punishment, including physical abuse and intimidation, degrading, cruel, and

7 sadistic treatment, and the wanton and needless infliction of pain, a~ guaranteed to

8 Plaintiffs by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

9 Constitution.

10

B. Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution; 42

11

U.S.C. Section 1983

12·

248. By reason of the allegations set fmih in Paragraphs 1 - 245,

13 supra, plaintiffs Rosas and Goodwin, and the class they represent, were deprived,

14 . and continue to be deprived, by the Defendant oftheir right to due process and to be

15 free from punishment without process, in the form of gratuitous and excessive 16. force, threats of gratuitous and excessive force, and degrading, cruel and sadistic ·

17 treatment, as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

18 Constitution.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request this Court as follows:

21

1. Declare that the continuing inaction of the Defendant, as described

22 above, violates the rights of the. Plaintiff class under the Eighth and Fourteenth

23 Amendments to the United States. Constitution;

24

2. Grant preliminary and .permanent injunctive relief, enJommg ·the

25 Defendant, his ;;uccessors; agents, servants, employees, and all those in active

26 concert or participation with them, from subjecting inmates in the Jails to physical

27 abuse and the threat ofphysical abuse;

28

-74-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 76 of 83 Page ID #:988

1

3. Require the Defendant to formulate a remedy, subject to the court's

2 approval and ·modification, if necessary, to end the pattern of excessive force and

3 physical abuse in those jails, including:

4

(A) adequate policy on the :Use of force;

5

(B) adequate investigation of all use of force incidents and inmate-

6 on-inmate violence, with investigations performed by personnel unconnected to the

7 attack under investigation;

8

(C) appropriate training in use of force and prevention of inmate-on-

9 inmate violence;

10

· (D) appropriate discipline of staff members found to be involved in

11 improper use of force incidents, improper threats of violence against inmates;

12 incitement of inmate-on-inmate attacks; or failure to report use of force incidents;

13

(E) appropriate selection and supervision of command and uniformed

14 custodial staff.

15

4. Retain jurisdiction in this case until the unlawful conditions, practices,

16 policies, acts, and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and this Court is

17 satisfied that they will not recur; ·

18

5. .Award the costs of this action, inducting reasonable attorneys' fees;

19 and

20

6 . Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

21 II

22 II

23 II

24 II

25· II

26 II

27 II

28 II

-75-

FIRST AMENDED COiviPLAlNT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 77 of 83 Page ID #:989

1 DATED: April3, 2012

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9 _DATED: April3, 2012 10 11 "

12 13 14 15 . 16

17 18 DATED: April3, 2012 19 20 21

22 23 24

25

26

LEGAL_US_WII70140023.12

27

28

PETERJ. ELIASBERG MARISOL ORIHUELA ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ·
·~~
By: PETER J. ELIAm=mkG

AttorneJ{s for Plaintiffs

-

ALEX OSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on

behalf ofthemselves and ofthose similarly

situated

_.

MARGARET WINTER ERIC BALABAN DAVID M. SHAPIRO NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

By: cA!~£7/V~. U MARGARET WINTER

Attome~s for Plaintiffs

.

ALEX OSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on

behalf of themselves and of those similarly

situated .

DONNA M. l\1ELBY JOHNS . DURRANT JADE H. LEUNG ELIZABETH C. MUELLER PAUL HASTINGS LLP

By: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwill

-76-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE REL~F

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 78 of 83 Page ID #:990

II .

t:- ---...............
4

.1.-...I

7.
- ....

• ':'

-

. . . . . .. .I .......

- .....

.. . ., .... -{ ,:.•"-! -.,. . . -

I ,.•

j

I'

111

~

- J tr.... ,

t

....

-

.J
T

:.

.,
• -.,

•

.. ... - . - .. -c·.. ._ -.. •... . - • ........

··~
.. -

' - -...

- -~ -~

a:- ••a :: .- I -.

•

...

-

• • ~r -

.. -,-i 4t --=~.~..--.

•

~-.

l.
_-"!..

-

...1~

. .
.

• I

.-----·. --........ -'_ - - ......l--- --- . ·-........-..."'.I - . - .. -. -- ... .. .... r .- r . ......-
. .. .. ... .. .. . - -- - ....•

~ ~ J I • .-L

• •:

•

=·~·~--~r---.·.:•.•.JI. ~ ..-_. ...-.

I ....

... - - - :~

.. .!-·._.-

.
. ~

..

_..

.....

•...
...

-

"

..
•

-

.
•
•..

Ill
·!
. I

~
. I .
I
••

]

1
..... •
-
1-:·

..

a a
. .~:
·.~. ·

. .' .,.
.

.-.

• •

•

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 79 of 83 Page ID #:991

.. r

-- --- l Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 80 of 83 Page ID #:992

I 1 '

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 81 of 83 Page ID #:993

I t I

•

tt'

•

-a -

I'
,~

a
• ~

' '

• •....
.. ---

I

I

I

I

It

_ .. !.!

ij
· ' •• 'IJ

... .

~.J

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 82 of 83 Page ID #:994 ·-..../"'·

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 32 Filed 04/03/12 Page 83 of 83 Page ID #:995

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE QF CALIFORNIA

3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES

.

4

5

I am employed in the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, State·

of California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action. My business

6 address is 515 South Flower Street, Twenty.:Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.

7

On April3, 2012, I served the forego ing document(s) described as:

8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR IN:JUNCTIYE RELIEF CLASS ACTION

9 on the inter.ested parties by placing thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

10 Paul B. Beach
11 Justin W. Clark Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC
12 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200 Glendale, California 91210-1219
13

14

D

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL:

15

VIA

:By delivering such document(s) to an overnight mail service or an':'·

authorized courier in a sealed envel.ope or package designated by the express service

16

courier addressed to the person(s) ori whom it is to be served.

VIA U.S. MAIL:

17 I am readily fam iliar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of

18

correspondence for mailing. Under that practice such .sealed envelope(s) would be

deposited with the U.S. postal service on April3, 2012 with .postage thereon fully prepaid,

19

at Los Angeles, California.

20

D

VIA FAC~IMILE:

The facsimile transmission report indicated that the transmission was complete'and

21

without error. The facsimile was transmitted to Facsimile#

on April 3, 2012 at

_ _. A copy of that report, which was properly issued by the transmitting machine, is

22

attached hereto. [Permitted by written agreement of the parties.}

23

I declare under penalty of pe.tjury under the laws of the United States that

the above is true and correct.

24

Executed on April 3, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.

25

26

27

Kareen Romano

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 111 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2458

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on behalf of themselves

12 and of those similarly situated,

13

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. CV 12-00428 DDP ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PARTIES’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

14

vs.

Honorable Dean D. Pregerson

15

Jim McDonnell, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, in his official capacity,

Ctrm: 3

16

Defendant.

[LINK TO DOCKET NUMBER 110]

17

18

19

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”),

20 the Parties jointly move the Court to grant preliminary approval to the proposed

21 settlement agreement (“the Settlement”), attached as Exhibits A and B to the

22 Motion (docket number 110), and to approve the Parties’ proposed Notice to

23 members of the Plaintiff Class (“Class Members”), attached as Exhibit C to the

24 Motion. Based on the entire record before the Court, the Court finds:

25

The Settlement is the result of extensive arms-length negotiations between

26 the Parties. After reviewing the terms of the Settlement in light of the record and of

27 controlling legal authority, the Court finds the Settlement is sufficiently reasonable,

28 adequate, fair, and consistent with relevant federal law to warrant preliminary -1-

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 111 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2459

1 approval and provision of notice to Class Members of a hearing for final approval

2 of the Settlement (“the Fairness Hearing”).

3

The Court also finds that the form of Notice (Exhibit C) constitutes due and

4 sufficient notice of the Settlement to all persons entitled to receive notice required

5 by due process and Rule 23. The Court further finds that the method of delivery of

6 notice proposed by the Parties, namely, posting copies of the Notice in certain areas

7 in the jails where inmates can read them, providing copies of the Notice upon

8 request to certain inmates in disciplinary segregation, and posting copies of the

9 Notice on the Parties’ respective websites by February 6, 2015, at least 39 days

10 before the deadline for filing objections as provided by Rule 23(e)(2) to be the most

11 effective and practicable manner of notice under the circumstances.

12

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

14

1. The Settlement as Exhibits A and B is PRELIMINARILY

15 APPROVED. Final approval of the Settlement is subject to a hearing and to review

16 by the Court of any objections submitted by Class Members to the terms of the

17 Settlement.

18

2. The Notice as Exhibit C is APPROVED.

19

3. On or before January 13, 2015, Defendants will provide notice of the

20 Settlement to the appropriate federal and state officials, as required by the Class

21 Action Fairness Act codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

22

4. On or before February 6, 2015, the Parties will take the following steps

23 to effect notice of the Settlement:

24

a. Defendant will post copies of the Notice in both English and

25

Spanish in the common area of all housing units in Men’s Central

26

Jail (“MCJ”) and Twin Towers Correctional Facility (“TTCF”) and

27

in places in the Inmate Reception Center (“IRC”) where inmates

28 -2-

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 111 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2460

1

who are being processed into the jails can read them;

2

b. Defendant will post copies of the Notice in both English and

3

Spanish in places where K-10 inmates and inmates in disciplinary

4

segregation in MCJ and TTCF can read them. Defendant will

5

provide copies of the Notice upon request to K-10 inmates and

6

inmates who have been in disciplinary segregation in MCJ and

7

TTCF for more than 10 days during the notice period; and

8

c. The Parties will post copies of the Notice in both English and

9

Spanish on their respective websites.

10

5. Any Class Member may object to the Settlement by filing an objection

11 by March 17, 2015. To be considered by the Court, any written objections to final

12 approval of the Settlement must provide the objector’s name, address (if available),

13 telephone number (if available), signature, a reference to the Settlement or the case

14 (Rosas v. McDonnell), and must state the basis for the objection. The objection

15 must be filed in writing, along with any other papers the objector wishes the Court

16 to consider, by mailing them by March 17, 2015 to Rosas Plaintiff’s Class Counsel,

17 c/o ACLU of Southern California, 1313 West 8th Street, Los Angeles, California

18 90017. No Class Member will be entitled to be heard at the Fairness Hearing

19 (whether individually or through separate counsel) unless written notice of the

20 Class Member’s intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing is served on counsel for

21 the Parties by March 17, 2015.

22

6. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on April 13,

23 2015, to be heard in Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled Court, located at 312 North

24 Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 at which time the Court will hear oral

25 argument and testimony relating to whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and

26 adequate. The Court, in its discretion, will determine which Class Members, if any,

27 who have requested to appear will be entitled to appear and be heard at the Fairness

28 -3-

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 111 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2461

1 Hearing. Should an objector choose to be represented by counsel at the Fairness

2 Hearing, he or she may do so at his or her own expense. In order to be heard at the

3 Fairness Hearing, any attorney representing an objector must file a Notice of

4 Appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all parties at least ten calendar

5 days before the Fairness Hearing. Class Members who fail to file and serve timely

6 objections in the manner prescribed herein will be deemed to have waived any

7 objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or

8 otherwise) to the Settlement or the Court’s approval thereof.

9

7. If objections are filed, the Parties’ counsel may engage in discovery

10 concerning the objections prior to the Fairness Hearing.

11

8. The Parties’ counsel shall serve on each other and file with the Court,

12 at least three calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing, any further documents in

13 support of this Order, including responses to any papers filed by Class Members.

14

15

16

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23th day of January, 2015.

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

DEAN D. PREGERSON

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -4-

 
 1

2

3

4

5
JS-6
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN

CASE NO. CV 12-00428 DDP

GOODWIN on behalf of themselves

12 and of those similarly situated,

ORDER APPROVING CLASS

SETTLEMENT, RETAINING

13

Plaintiffs,

JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

14

vs.

AGREEMENT, DISMISSING

ACTION

15 Jim McDonnell, Sheriff of Los Angeles

County, in his official capacity,

16

(DOCKET NUMBER 130)

Defendant.

17

Honorable Dean D. Pregerson

18

Ctrm: 3

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Final

2 Approval of the Settlement Agreement, which was entered into between Plaintiff

3 Alex Rosas on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class and Defendant

4 (collectively, the “Parties”).

5

The Court certified a class defined as “all present and future inmates

6 confined in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles” (the “Plaintiff Class”)

7 under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by order dated June 7,

8 2012. This Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement

9 (the “Settlement Agreement”) on January 23, 2015 in which it approved the form

10 and provision of notice of the Settlement Agreement to the Plaintiff Class,

11 established the procedure and deadlines for members of the Plaintiff Class to

12 object to the Settlement Agreement, and set forth other deadlines relating to the

13 hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement (the “Fairness Hearing”).

14

Having received and considered the one written objection submitted by a

15 member of the Plaintiff Class related to the Settlement Agreement, having held a

16 Fairness Hearing on April 20, 2015, having reviewed the filings, documents, orders

17 and/or admissible evidence which are currently filed of record with the Court, and

18 having considered the arguments of counsel for the Parties, the Court hereby

19 ORDERS as follows:

20

1. NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e)(1). Reasonable notice of the

21 Settlement Agreement was provided to members of the Plaintiff Class in the

22 manner directed by the Court by separate Order dated January 23, 2015. Members

23 of the Plaintiff Class were then afforded an opportunity to submit comments and

24 objections to the Court concerning the Settlement Agreement. The Court held a

25 Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

26 on April 20, 2015, at which it heard arguments by counsel for the Parties and a

27 statement in support of the Settlement Agreement by a former inmate at Men’s

28 -1-

1 Central Jail.

2

2. RULE 23(e)(2) FINDINGS. The Court makes the following findings

3 pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

4

a) The Parties engaged in substantial motion practice before initiating

5

settlement negotiations.

6

b) The Settlement Agreement is the product of a lengthy, hard-fought and

7

non-collusive negotiation process that began more than two years ago

8

between counsel for the Plaintiff Class (“Class Counsel”) and for the

9

Defendant.

10

c) Class Counsel reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents produced

11

by Defendant and conferred repeatedly with their experts about those

12

documents before settlement was reached.

13

d) Any trial of this matter would have been lengthy, expensive, and involved

14

testimony from numerous fact witnesses and experts.

15

e) The Settlement Agreement sets forth a comprehensive approach to

16

addressing the allegations of a pattern of excessive force set forth in

17

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

18

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,

19 reasonable, and adequate.

20

3. COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TERMS OF THE

21 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The Court hereby adopts and incorporates by

22 reference the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the Parties,

23 including the Implementation Plan developed by Richard Drooyan, Jeffrey

24 Schwartz, and Robert Houston (“the Expert Panel”) attached thereto. A copy of the

25 Settlement Agreement, with the Implementation Plan, is attached hereto as

26 Exhibit A.

27

4. APPOINTMENT OF AN EXPERT PANEL TO DEVELOP AND

28 -2-

1 EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

2 Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Court previously appointed the Expert

3 Panel, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to develop an

4 Implementation Plan designed to ensure that members of the Plaintiff Class are not

5 subjected to excessive force in Men’s Central Jail, Twin Towers Correctional

6 Facility, and the Inmate Reception Center (collectively, “the Jail Complex in

7 downtown Los Angeles”). The Court hereby appoints the Expert Panel to monitor

8 and advise the Court on Defendant’s compliance with the Implementation Plan.

9

5. DEFENDANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE

10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF

11 THE EXPERT PANEL. Defendant must comply with and implement the

12 Implementation Plan, as modified by the Court, as soon as reasonably practicable.

13

6. CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND EXPENSES. The $950,000

14 Defendant agreed to pay to resolve Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs is well

15 below Class Counsel’s lodestar and is reasonable in light of the time spent on the

16 matter, the complexity of the matter, and the skill and expertise Class Counsel

17 demonstrated in representing the Plaintiff Class.

18

a. Defendant shall tender to Class Counsel a warrant in the amount

19 of $950,000 made payable to “ACLU Foundation of Southern California” within

20 45 days, which shall constitute payment for any and all attorneys’ fees and

21 expenses incurred, charged and/or otherwise generated by Class Counsel from the 22 inception of the litigation through the date of entry of this Order.1 Class Counsel

23 shall provide to Defendant any and all paperwork and information including,

24

25 1 In evaluating the reasonableness of the amount agreed to by the Parties, the Court has reviewed
the declarations of John Durrant, Peter Eliasberg, Christian Lebano, Esther Lim, and Margaret
26 Winter filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement explaining Class
Counsel’s fees, costs, and billing methodology, and has considered a number of factors including
27 (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the results obtained, (5) the experience,
28 reputation, and ability of the attorneys, and (6) the ‘undesirability’ of the case.
-3-

1 without limitation, a duly executed W-9 IRS form, prior to receiving said payment.

2

b. Defendant will pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to Class

3 Counsel for ongoing work to ensure compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

4 The amount of fees and costs due to Class Counsel under this paragraph will be

5 determined on a semi-annual basis for the duration of the Court’s jurisdiction over

6 the Settlement Agreement. The Parties will try to reach agreement on these semi-

7 annual fee awards and submit a stipulation for the Court’s approval. If the Parties

8 are unable to reach agreement on a semi-annual fee award, Class Counsel will

9 submit a motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the Court will determine the

10 appropriate amount of fees. Under no circumstances shall Class Counsel be entitled

11 to payment of more than $30,000 per year in attorneys’ fees and costs to ensure

12 compliance with the Settlement Agreement, exclusive of any fees and costs

13 reasonably incurred to oppose any motion to modify or terminate the Settlement

14 Agreement by Defendant pursuant to Paragraph XII(2) of the Settlement

15 Agreement.

16

7. DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION. Upon the entry of this

17 Order, the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Central District of

18 California is hereby directed to administratively close this case and enter a

19 dismissal of the Civil Action with prejudice.

20

8. COURT’S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE

21 THE ORDER. Notwithstanding the provision in Paragraph 7 above, the Court

22 shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Settlement

23 Agreement or modifying it in accordance with Section XIV(6) of that agreement.

24

9. NO APPEAL. All Parties have waived all rights to seek any appeal

25 from and/or appellate review of this Order.

26

10. FINDINGS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The Court

27 specifically finds that, although this matter was not actually litigated or resolved on

28 -4-

1 the merits, the relief in this Order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

2 necessary to correct the alleged violations of the Federal rights, and is the least

3 intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violations of the Federal rights.

4

Nothing contained in this Order or the Settlement Agreement shall be

5 construed as an admission of any kind by the County of Los Angeles, any

6 Defendant and/or any agent, employee, officer and/or representative of the Los

7 Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. This Order shall not be admissible in any

8 court, except to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

9

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil

10 docket as a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

11 Procedure.

12

This case is closed.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15 Dated: April 21, 2015 16 17

By: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HON. DEAN D. PREGERSON

18

19 Submitted by: Peter Eliasberg
20 Attorney for Plaintiff Class

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -5-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1729

1 PETER J. ELIASBERG (SB# 189110) peliasberg@aclu-sc.org
2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017
4 Phone: (213) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 977-5299
5

6 DONNA M. MELBY (SB# 86417) donnamelby@paulhastings.com
7 JOHN S. DURRANT (SB# 217345) johndurrant@paulhastings.com
8 JADE H. LEUNG (SB# 279651) jadeleung@paulhastings.com
9 ELIZABETH C. MUELLER (SB# 278283)
10 bethmueller@paulhastings.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP
11 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
12 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 627-0705
13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN 15 GOODWIN, on behalf of themselves
and of those similarly situated 16

MARGARET WINTER (pro hac vice) mwinter@npp-aclu.org ERIC BALABAN (pro hac vice application forthcoming) ebalaban@npp-aclu.org NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 393-4930 Fax: (202) 393-4931

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

20 ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN

CASE NO. CV 12-00428 DDP

GOODWIN on behalf of themselves

21 and of those similarly situated,

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING

OF REPORT CONCERNING

22

Plaintiff,

VIOLENCE IN LOS ANGELES

COUNTY JAILS, AND

23

vs.

SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS

AND EXHIBITS; ADDITIONAL

24 LEROY BACA, Sheriff of Los Angeles DECLARATIONS OF CIVILIAN

County Jails,

WITNESSES AND CURRENT AND

25

FORMER INMATES

Defendant.

26

27

28

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1730

1

Plaintiffs hereby give notice of their filing of the 2012 Annual Report on

2 Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jails, and the declarations and exhibits cited
3

4 in that Report. Additional Declarations of Civilian Witnesses and Current and

5 Former Inmates are also attached. 6

7 DATED: September 28, 2012 ACLU Foundation of Southern California

8

National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation Paul Hastings LLP

9

10

PETER J. ELIASBERG

11

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

12

13

By:

14

PETER J. ELIASBERG

15

16

17 DATED: September 28, 2012 JOHN S. DURRANT PAUL HASTINGS LLP
18

19 By: s/ John S. Durrant

20

JOHN S. DURRANT

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN GOODWIN on

behalf of themselves and of those similarly

23

situated

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1731

1 2 3 I. 4 II. 5 III. 6 IV. 7 8 9 10 11 12 V. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INDEX 2012 Annual Report on Los Angeles County Jail Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Martin Expert Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eliasberg Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Civilian Eyewitness Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Declaration of Scott Budnick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Declaration of Paulino Juarez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Declaration of Esther Lim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Declaration of Jessica Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67A Key to Current Prisoner Aliases Used in Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67C All Current and Former Inmate Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Declarations A through JJJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1732
2012 Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County Jails:
The Troubling Pattern of Deputy-on-Inmate Head Strikes and Inmate Head Injuries in the Los Angeles County Jails
ACLU National Prison Project ACLU of Southern California
Paul Hastings LLP
September 26, 2012
Principal Authors Sarah Liebowitz ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Jails Project Peter Eliasberg Legal Director, ACLU Foundation of Southern California
Esther Lim ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Jails Project Coordinator
John Durrant Attorney, Paul Hastings LLP
Page 3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:1733
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. SEVERE HEAD INJURIES RESULTING FROM
HEAD STRIKES ARE PREVALENT IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEDICAL RECORDS CONFIRM MANY OF THE INMATE STATEMENTS ABOUT SIGNIFICANT HEAD INJURIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 V. WHEN DEPUTIES MUST USE FORCE AGAINST INMATES, THEY HAVE MORE APPROPRIATE TACTICS AT THEIR DISPOSAL THAN HEAD STRIKES, WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
-i-
Page 4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:1734
I. INTRODUCTION
Correctional officers should strike inmates‟ heads only as a matter of last resort. But in the Los Angeles County Jails, that is not the reality.
As explained below, there is clear evidence that the Los Angeles County Sheriff‟s Department (“LASD”) deputies have used head strikes with alarming regularity in the Los Angeles County jails. In many of those incidents the head strikes have caused significant injuries. The manner and frequency of such head strikes strongly suggests an inappropriate use of force by deputies.
In recent years, Los Angeles Sheriff‟s deputies have stomped on inmates‟ heads, even after shackling those inmates‟ hands. They have bashed inmates‟ faces into concrete walls. They have fractured inmates‟ facial bones – noses, jaws, cheekbones, or eye sockets. The ACLU is aware of least 11 inmates who have had their facial bones broken by LASD deputies in the past three years. One inmate has lost vision in one eye. Others have undergone surgery.
Sixty-four people have made sworn statements describing incidents in which deputies targeted inmates‟ heads for attack between 2009 and 2012. These are not mere unsubstantiated complaints.1 The ACLU has corroborated 12 of these allegations of head injuries with secondary evidence, such as medical records, photographic documentation, or civilian reports. In several other instances, inmate witnesses have corroborated reports of deputy-on-inmate head strikes.
If history is any guide, LASD will respond to this evidence by attacking the ACLU2 and blaming inmates. They will argue that inmates‟ accounts of deputies using
1 Fifty-four declarants are inmates or former inmates; one is a visitor to MCJ; four declarants are civilian eyewitnesses; five are inmates or former inmates who witnessed deputies striking other inmates‟ heads. 2 The day after the ACLU published its September 2011 report on deputy on inmate abuse in the jails, which included accounts of deputies beating inmates from two jails chaplains, a volunteer jail tutor, and a jail monitor, Sheriff Baca stated, “[t]ruth is hard to find if you‟re in a rush, and the ACLU obviously felt a rush to get the report out. They don‟t have any substantial proof other than accusations,” available at http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/09/29/29150/la-sheriff-baca-dismisses-aclu-report-jailbrutali/.
1
Page 5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:1735
unjustified force are false,3 and they will allege that inmates were the aggressors.4 But
even assuming that the LASD is correct that the inmates were aggressive towards
deputies, the attempt to blame inmates does not absolve the LASD from its use of
excessive and illegal force. For even where inmates are the aggressors, the fundamental
widely recognized rule regarding use of force by a custodial officer is that head strikes
are almost never permissible. Accordingly, head injuries should be an exceedingly rare
consequence of a use of force incident, even when inmates are aggressive.
The reasons for this rule are clear: deputy-on-inmate head strikes are unnecessarily
dangerous to both inmates and deputies. According to Steve Martin, a former
correctional officer and a nationally recognized corrections expert: “because closed fist
head strikes, strikes to the head with blunt objects, using force so that inmates‟ heads
strike solid objects such as walls or floors, and/or kicks [to the head] by deputies produce
needless and oftentimes serious injuries (and oftentimes corresponding officer hand
injuries), and such tactics are not typically as effective in neutralizing inmate resistance
3 In September 2011, an LASD spokesperson responded to a third ACLU report detailing scores of incidents of deputy on inmate abuse by saying that department thoroughly investigated all complaints of abuse that it received and that most were unsubstantiated. See Jennifer Medina, Report Details Wide Abuse in Los Angeles Jail System, NY Times, Sept. 28, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/aclu-suit-detailswide-abuse-in-los-angeles-jail-system.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp. In May 2010, the LASD spokesperson responded to an ACLU report containing numerous sworn statements of deputy abuse of inmates by stating that they were “absolutely false.” See ACLU: LA County jail guards perpetuate violence, KPCC Radio, May 5, 2010 available at http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/05/05/14828/aclu-says-la-county-jail-guardperpetuate-violence/. 4 "‟Most of our uses of force, even when they're inappropriate, are provoked by the inmate,‟ [LASD Commander James] Hellmold said. „That's the reality of the job.‟” Jack Leonard and Robert Faturechi, D.A. In the Dark On Jail Probes, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 4, 2011 available at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04/local/la-me-jails-da-20111205. In fact, the Los Angeles Citizens‟ Commission on Jail Violence has found that even according to the LASD‟s own statistics, in the majority of cases (57%) in 2011 where deputies used force against inmates, the inmates had not assaulted the deputies. Finding available at http://ccjv.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CCJV-090712-Exhibits.pdf./ The Commission also found that “LASD personnel have used force against inmates disproportionate to the threat posed, or when there was no threat at all.” Id. (emphasis added). The Commission also found the LASD‟s “Process for Reviewing and Investigating Force Incidents Is Not Effective” and that “[t]here are multiple deficiencies in LASD‟s Investigatory Process.” Id. .
2
Page 6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:1736
as many other approved tactics that are less potentially injurious, such hard impact strikes to the head should be very infrequently used.”5 Deputies should only employ hard strikes to the head in situations “in which the inmate is engaged in aggravated active physical aggression (officer(s) is subject to death or great bodily harm) and other less injurious tactics are impracticable.”6
According to Mr. Martin, the impropriety of head strikes and the frequency with which inmates in the County jails suffered injuries to their heads “are strong evidence that Los Angeles Sheriffs frequently used excessive and unreasonable force, even if the deputies had used force on the injured inmates because those inmates had been aggressive towards, or assaulted the deputies.”7
II. METHODOLOGY
Over the years, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California received and collected several thousand complaints and reports from inmates, including inmate declarations, in the Los Angeles County Jail system in the past year. The ACLU receives these complaints as a result of its monitoring role in the jails: pursuant to a series of courtapproved agreements between the ACLU and the LASD, the ACLU has monitored conditions in the county jails since 1985. The ACLU has greater access to jail facilities than the general public; thus, ACLU representatives are able to speak with inmates and observe jail conditions first-hand.
As part of their monitoring efforts, representatives from the ACLU‟s Jails Project regularly visit the jail facilities and process inmate complaints. In addition, inmates and family members of inmates frequently write letters and make phone calls to the ACLU to make complaints about scores of issues, including deputy-on-inmate assaults. Signs posted in common areas of the jail facilities tell inmates that they may contact the ACLU‟s Jails Project with complaints about jail conditions.
The information in this report comes from the thousands of complaints the ACLU received in the past four years, in addition to the dozens of jail tours and face-to-face
5 Declaration of Steve Martin, ¶ 21 (September 21, 2012). 6 Martin Decl., ¶ 21. 7 Martin Decl., ¶ 25.
3
Page 7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:1737
interviews with inmates ACLU representatives conducted. Medical records, witness accounts, and photographs also provide documentation of deputy-on-inmate head strikes in the jail system.
The report‟s findings are also based on the observations of an expert: Steve Martin, a former correctional officer who is now a correctional consultant who has been retained as a corrections expert by, among others, the United States Department of Justice‟s Civil Rights Division. Mr. Martin has reviewed and/or helped develop use of force policies and practices for scores of confinement operations throughout the United States and its territories, including for the United States government. In addition, Mr. Martin has served as the court-appointed monitor in class-action lawsuits regarding use of force claims in jails and prisons, and jointly monitored the New York City Department of Corrections over use of force at its jail on Rikers Island.
Mr. Martin reviewed a random sample of the reports of head injuries the ACLU has gathered, analyzing 19 uses of force incidents (roughly one-third of the total). For each incident, he reviewed inmate declarations and any supporting documentation, such as photographs of injuries and medical records.
The head injuries and attacks detailed in this report are not exhaustive. They simply represent the experiences of those inmates who brought their beatings and injuries to the attention of the ACLU. As the ACLU has demonstrated in the past, many inmates are too fearful of deputy retaliation to report acts of deputy-on-inmate violence,8 are threatened by deputies with more beatings,9 are not taken to the medical clinic or hospital when they ask the deputies for medical attention,10 or deputies tell them that they need to say that
8 See Sarah Liebowitz, Peter Eliasberg, Margaret Winter, & Esther Lim, “Cruel and Usual Punishment: How a Savage Gang of Deputies Controls LA County Jails” (2011), filed in Rutherford v. Baca, CV 75-04111-DDP, 2006 WL 3065781 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (No. 294), p. 18. The Los Angeles Citizens‟ Commission on Jail Violence found that “Anecdotal Evidence Suggests Use of Force is Underreported” and that “witnesses and inmates fear retaliation for reporting an incident.” Findings available at http://ccjv.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CCJV-090712-Exhibits.pdf./. 9 Declaration of Mr. D, ¶ 7 (Oct. 23, 2009). 10 Declaration of Mr. KK, ¶ 20 (June 22, 2011); Declaration of Mr. LL, ¶ 20 (Sept. 9, 2011).
4
Page 8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:1738
they fell to get medical attention.11
III. SEVERE HEAD INJURIES RESULTING FROM HEAD STRIKES ARE PREVALENT IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAILS
The types of injuries inmates have suffered evidence the extent of deputy-oninmate head strikes in the Los Angeles County Jails. In the last three years, inmates have submitted sworn statements documenting the following:
Deputies have broken facial bones of at least 11 inmates.12 Deputies have blinded an inmate in one eye.13 Deputies have sent three inmates to the operating room.14
Deputies have left 14 inmates with facial gashes – often just above their eyes – so deep they required sutures.15 “[T]he number and extent of head injuries sustained in these use of force incidents strongly suggest that LACJ deputies at alarming levels too frequently employ hard impact head strikes during use of force incidents,” Mr. Martin concluded after reviewing a random sample of the incidents of deputy-on-inmate head strikes documented by the ACLU.16 The injury reports, Mr. Martin said, “reflected an exceedingly high incidence of head injuries many of which included multiple head injuries to the same inmate.
11 Declaration of Mr. Y, ¶ 23 (July 5, 2011); Declaration of Mr. VV, ¶ 8 (March 28, 2011). 12 Declaration of Mr. R, ¶ 24 (Apr. 12, 2011); Declaration of Mr. K, ¶ 8 (July 14, 2010); Declaration of Mr. L, ¶ 7 (July 20, 2010); Declaration of Mr. XX, ¶¶ 15-16 (Apr. 4, 2012); Declaration of Mr. FF, ¶¶ 30-32 (Apr. 19, 2011); Declaration of Mr. J, ¶ 11 (July 26, 2010); Declaration of Mr. ZZ, ¶ 31 (Feb. 24, 2012); Declaration of Mr. G, ¶ 14 (Oct. 21, 2009); Declaration of Mr. MM, ¶ 52 (June 22, 2011); Declaration of Mr. OO, ¶¶ 1415 (Aug. 22 2011); Declaration of Mr. PP, ¶ 6 (May 10, 2010). 13 Declaration of Mr. BB, ¶ 28 (Apr. 12, 2011). 14 Mr. BB Decl., ¶ 28; Mr. FF Decl., ¶¶ 30-32; Mr. J Decl., ¶ 11. 15 Declaration of Mr. D , ¶ 6 (Oct. 23, 2009); Declaration of Mr. T, ¶ 11 (Aug. 2, 2011); Declaration of Mr. UU , ¶¶ 17-18 (Oct. 28, 2011); Declaration of Mr. Z, ¶ 31 (Nov. 24, 2010); Mr. BB Decl., ¶ 28; Declaration of Mr. EE,¶ 20 (Aug. 4, 2011); Declaration of Mr. A, ¶ 6 (June 24, 2009); Declaration of Mr. H, ¶ 7 (Oct. 26, 2009); Mr. XX Decl., ¶¶ 15-16; Mr. FF Decl., ¶¶ 30-32; Declaration of Mr. F, ¶ 6 (June 16, 2009); Declaration of Mr. NN, ¶ 50 (Aug. 22, 2011); Declaration of Mr. EEE, ¶¶ 10, 13 (Jan. 1, 2012); Mr. E, ¶ 8 (Oct. 7, 2009). 16 Martin Decl., ¶ 14.
5
Page 9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:1739
Moreover, many of these injuries required medical procedures such as suturing and staples. Some of the inmates sustained facial fractures and tooth injuries while others required hospitalization to attend their injuries.”17
The sworn statements, photographs, and medical records that are being submitted to the Court today demonstrate both the seriousness of the injuries resulting from deputyon-inmate head strikes in the Los Angeles County jails and the frequency with which they occur. In addition, the ACLU has recently obtained a declination memorandum from the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s office that summarizes LASD investigators‟ findings on use of force by LASD personnel against an inmate that involved an LASD supervisor directing deputies to strike an inmate in the head, even though the inmate was lying on the ground and there were four to six LASD personnel surrounding him when the supervisor gave the order to strike the inmate in the head. Finally, internal LASD memoranda from the last few years also discuss inmates who had head injuries in the wake of force used by deputies.18
Several of the most severe injuries are briefly described below:
Declaration of Mr. FF, dated April 19, 2011, ¶¶ 14-15, ¶¶ 30-34 (Deputy punched the side of inmate‟s face; threw inmate to floor and repeatedly kicked inmate‟s head, jaw, and ear. Inmate suffered a fractured jaw, which was wired shut for one month to heal. Inmate required surgery to remove the lens from his eye. Inmate needs future eye surgeries, including the insertion of a tube to drain fluid from his eye; a doctor told inmate that his vision may be permanently impaired. Inmate received stitches to the inside of his ear);
Declaration of Mr. J, dated, July 26, 2010, ¶ 4, ¶¶ 8-11 (Deputy punched inmate in head with closed fist; two deputies then repeatedly punched inmate in the face
17 Martin Decl., ¶ 14. 18 See Memorandum of Captain Gregory H. Johnson, January 23, 2010 at page 1 (noting inmate suffered bruises on left and right sides of his head); id. at page 2 (noting inmate suffered significant injuries to his right cheek); id. at page 3 (noting inmate, whose jaw had been wired shut due to a prior incident, suffered injuries to his head and jaw); id. (noting deputy elbowed inmate in the face); id. at page 4 (noting inmate had been kicked in the face); id. at page 5 (noting inmate suffered bruising on his forehead and two large red knots on the top of his head); See Memorandum of Lieutenant Mark A. McCorkle, November 23, 2009 at page 3 (noting “[r]epeated blows to the head of inmates, causing injury to deputies” as one of most prolific tactical and policy issues observed in review of more than 100 use of force incidents between 2005 and 2009 in Men‟s Central Jail).
6
Page 10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:1740
and head, causing the inmate to lose consciousness. When the inmate regained consciousness, the deputies were still attacking him. Inmate needed surgery to remove a hematoma in his ear. He suffered facial fractures, a chipped tooth, and other trauma);
Declaration of Mr. BB, dated April 12, 2011, ¶¶ 15-17, ¶ 28 (Deputies repeatedly punched, hit, and kicked inmate in the head and body. Deputies ignored inmate‟s complaints about blurry vision and a swollen head. When they finally allowed him to see a doctor, the doctor diagnosed a detached retina and performed surgery);
Declination memorandum re: multiple deputies use of force on Gabriel Carrillo during Mr. Carrillo‟s visit to Men‟s Central Jail, dated April 6, 2012 (an LASD sergeant directed deputies to strike Mr. Carrillo in the head with “personal weapons.” At the time of the order, Mr. Carrillo was already surrounded by at least five deputies. The attack left Mr. Carrillo with a broken nose, a swollen eye with ecchymosis, and other facial trauma, including a gash over his right eyebrow that required stitches.)
Deputy-on-inmate head strikes have resulted in at least 11 inmates suffering broken facial bones in the last three years, including fractured jaws, noses, cheekbones, and eye sockets.19 Several of the attacks are detailed below:
Declaration of Mr. K, dated July 14, 2010, ¶¶ 5-8 (Deputies hit inmate‟s head and neck. Although inmate did not initiate the altercation, deputies alleged that he did, and more deputies joined the attack. Deputies broke inmate‟s nose. They caused an artery in his brain to swell. They tore a ligament in inmate‟s ankle);
Declaration of Mr. R, dated April 12, 2011, ¶¶ 6-16, ¶ 24 (After inmate cursed at a deputy for denying the inmate dinner and putting the inmate on lockdown, the deputy punched the inmate in the eye with a closed fist and repeatedly kneed inmate in the face. Other deputies joined the attack. One deputy stepped on inmate‟s face. Inmate was left with a broken nose, a gash on his forehead, and a swollen eye);
Declaration of Mr. ZZ, dated March 13, 2012, ¶¶ 22-29, ¶ 31 (Deputies repeatedly punched inmate in the head and ear. Inmate suffered a fracture near the bottom of his right eye. He needed stitches on his forehead. His ear bled for more than a day following the attack).
Fourteen inmates have reported wounds grave enough to require sutures or staples. Several of these wounds are described in detail below:
19 Many others have suffered broken bones in other parts of their bodies as a result of use of force by deputies.
7
Page 11

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:1741
Declaration of Mr. NN, dated August 22, 2011, ¶ 2, ¶ 31, ¶¶ 36-45, ¶ 50 (After deputy accused inmate of calling him “gay,” he slammed inmate‟s face into a cement wall. Inmate lost consciousness. When he came to, he was handcuffed. A deputy was sitting on his back, punching his face and bringing a closed fist down on the back of his head. Deputies then used a Taser gun on inmate, while continuing to beat him. Inmate suffered a concussion, and needed 35 stitches to his forehead);
Declaration of Mr. H, dated October 26, 2009, ¶¶ 6-9 (After inmate complained about not receiving showers, deputies punched him in the face, eventually beating him so severely that inmate required stitches on his eyebrow, staples on his head, and surgery on his knee. In addition, he suffered a broken leg. Inmate was handcuffed during the entire assault);
Declaration of Mr. BB, dated August 2, 2011, ¶ 9, ¶¶ 20-22 (Two deputies repeatedly punched and kicked inmate‟s head, face, and body while inmate lay on the ground, and slammed his face into the ground. In addition to suffering a broken collarbone, inmate needed stitches above both eyebrows and bruises under his eyes. Inmate suffered dizziness and a ringing sound in his ear).
IV. PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEDICAL RECORDS CONFIRM MANY OF THE INMATE STATEMENTS ABOUT SIGNIFICANT HEAD INJURIES
Independent evidence corroborates many of the deputy-on-inmate head strikes the ACLU has documented over the past three years. 20 For 1221 of the most severe head
injuries inmates have reported, the ACLU has obtained medical records, photographs, or
civilian witness reports that substantiate the inmates‟ accounts. In addition, inmate
witnesses have corroborated several other reports of deputy-on-inmate head strikes.
When confronted with accounts of deputy-on-inmate attacks, the LASD has a common refrain: Blame the inmates or claim they are lying.22 But the corroborating
documents the ACLU has gathered demonstrate that the use of force is excessive
20 While the frequency of head strikes and head injuries appears to have declined since September/October 2011 when the Los Angeles Times reported that the FBI is investigating deputy abuse in the jails, the ACLU issued its September 2011 report, and the Board of Supervisors appointed the Citizens‟ Commission on Jail Violence, the ACLU has nonetheless received three reports of head strikes by deputies since that time. 21 Declaration of Mr. S; Declaration of Scott Budnick, See Declination memorandum concerning use of force by deputies on Gabriel Carrillo and photograph; Declaration of Mr. Y; Mr. BB Decl.; Mr. EE Decl.; Mr. H Decl.; Declaration of Paulino Juarez; Mr. FF Decl.; Mr. ZZ Decl.; Mr. F Decl.; Mr. NN Decl. 22 See footnotes 1, 2, supra.
8
Page 12

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:1742
regardless of the purported provocation, and that inmates clearly are not lying about suffering severe head injuries at the hands of LASD deputies. Several attacks for which the ACLU has obtained corroborating evidence are described below:
Declaration of Esther Lim, ACLU of Southern California Jails Project Coordinator, dated July 27, 2011, ¶ 3, ¶¶ 6-8 (After receiving a report that deputies had beaten inmate Mr. BB, Ms. Lim visited him in the Los Angeles Medical Center. Ms. Lim reported that the sclera in both of Mr. BB‟s eyes were completely red. He had dark bruises under both eyes, stitches over both eyebrows, a swollen lip, a broken collarbone, and bruising on his body. Ms. Lim‟s account corroborated the injuries Mr. BB reported receiving; Declaration of Mr. BB, dated August 2, 2011, ¶ 9, 20-22);
Photographs and medical records of Mr. NN, dated March 29, 2011 (Photographs of Mr. NN taken March 29, 2011, show a large sutured wound on Mr. NN‟s forehead. These photographs support the account Mr. NN gave in a declaration, dated August 22, 2011, ¶¶ 36-45, ¶ 50, in which Mr. NN recounted how a deputy slammed his face into a cement wall, and deputies then punched his face and head. Mr. NN reported suffering a concussion and needing 35 stitches to his forehead. Mr. NN‟s account is further substantiated by four declarations from inmate witnesses23);
Medical records of Mr. FF, dated July 2010 (Medical records from Los Angeles Medical Center substantiate the injuries Mr. FF reported receiving at the hands of deputies in his declaration, dated April 19, 2011, ¶¶ 14-15, ¶¶ 30-34, in which he reported suffering a fractured jaw, surgery to remove the lens from his eye, and stitches to the inside of his ear).
V. WHEN DEPUTIES MUST USE FORCE AGAINST INMATES, THEY HAVE MORE APPROPRIATE TACTICS AT THEIR DISPOSAL THAN HEAD STRIKES, WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE
There may be situations that warrant deputy-on-inmate force, such as inmate-ondeputy assaults. But even when force is warranted, according to Mr. Martin, head strikes are not the answer. There are ways of handling aggressive inmates without causing such severe – and potentially lasting – injury. When the deputies use closed fist strikes, they also risk significant injury to their own hands. Furthermore, head strikes are not as
23 Declaration of Mr. GGG, ¶¶ 12-13 (Aug. 19, 2011); Declaration of Mr. HHH, ¶¶ 12-19 (Aug. 19, 2011); Declaration of Mr. III, ¶¶ 5-20 (Aug. 19, 2011); Declaration of Mr. JJJ, ¶¶ 9-18 (Aug. 19, 2011).
9
Page 13

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:1743
effective as other types of force in restraining inmates. The “goal in every situation in which force is appropriate is to bring the situation
under control as quickly as possible by restraining the inmate,” said Mr. Martin.24 “Head strikes are improper both because they create a far greater risk of severe injury than other well-accepted tactics, and they are less effective means of restraining or immobilizing the inmate than these tactics.”25
According to Mr. Martin, the tactics deputies should rely on in situations demanding force include: joint locks, pressure points, arm bars, wrist locks, and strikes to muscled areas of the body, such as thighs. “Such defensive tactics are intended to neutralize the inmate‟s aggression and facilitate restraint without creating a needless risk of serious injury to either the inmate or the officer,” Mr. Martin said.26
The severe head injuries detailed in this report evidence the fact that Los Angeles Sheriff‟s Department deputies frequently strike inmates in the head, using “excessive and unreasonable force,” Mr. Martin said.27 Even if the situations described in this report warranted the use of force, according to Mr. Martin, deputies are unnecessarily imperiling inmates‟ health. VI. CONCLUSION
The prevalence of head strikes and head injuries strongly support the recent preliminary findings of the Citizens‟ Commission on Jail Violence, which the Board of Supervisors appointed shortly after the ACLU‟s September 28, 2011 report on deputy-oninmate abuse.28 In particular, the use of unnecessary and dangerous force as demonstrated by the prevalence of head strikes and severe head injuries supports the following key findings of the Commission:
LASD personnel have used force against inmates disproportionate to the threat posed or when there was no threat at all; LASD does not have a comprehensive, integrated and understandable use of force policy; A “force first” approach has been used as a means of discipline and to establish authority rather than a last-resort response to assaultive behavior;
24 Martin Decl. ¶ 24. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Martin Decl. ¶ 25. 28 See footnote 8, above
10
Page 14

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH Document 79-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:1744
LASD training for custody is far below both industry best practices and training standards in other correction systems; There is substantial evidence of failures in reporting, investigating and disciplining use of force in the jails; and The miniscule number of unreasonable force findings casts doubt on the integrity of the investigatory process.29
29 Findings available at http://ccjv.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CCJV090712-Exhibits.pdf.
11
Page 15

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:3568

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2

RICHARD E. DROOYAN (Bar No. 65672) 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

3 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025

4

Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

5 Email: rdrooyan@scheperkim.com

6 Monitor and on behalf of Monitors 7 Jeffrey Schwartz and Robert Houston

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13 ALEX ROSAS, et al.
14 Plaintiffs,
15

CV No. 12-00428 DDP PANEL’S FIRST REPORT

16

v.

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF

18 LEROY BACA, in his Official Capacity,

19

Defendant.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PANEL'S FIRST REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:3569

1

Pursuant to the Section V of the Settlement Agreement And Release of

2 Claims, the Monitor appointed by this Court, Jeffrey Schwartz, Robert Houston, and

3 Richard Drooyan (collectively the “Panel”) hereby submits the attached Panel’s

4 Report “evaluating Defendant’s Compliance with Action Plan” prepared by the

5 Panel and approved by the Court for the six-month period from July 1, 2015, to

6 December 31, 2015. This Report takes into consideration the comments from the

7 parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. The Panel is available to

8 answer any questions the Court may have regarding my Report at such times as are

9 convenient for the Court and the parties.

10

11 DATED: April 6, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

12

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

13

RICHARD E. DROOYAN

14

15

16

By: /s/ Richard E. Drooyan Richard E. Drooyan

17

Monitor and on behalf of Monitors Jeffrey

18

Schwartz and Robert Houston

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -
PANEL'S FIRST REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3570
PANEL’S REPORT
The Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement") between Plaintiff Alex Rosas, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, and the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles (the “Sheriff” or “Defendant”) in Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca, Case No. CV 12-00248-DPP (the “Rosas” case) provides that the Court-appointed Monitors (the “Panel”) will “prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan (‘Reports’) [developed by the Panel] at intervals the Panel shall determine.”1 This Report sets forth the status of, and assesses, the implementation of the provisions of the Action Plan during the period from July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015 (the “Initial Reporting Period”), and is created for the purposes of the settlement of the Rosas case.
The Panel began its monitoring activities in May 2014. This Report is based upon the Panel’s reviews of policies, procedures and directives proposed and/or implemented by the Department, multiple tours of the jails, numerous meetings with Department personnel, reviews of training courses, and the “Self-Assessment Status Report December 2015” (the “Self-Assessment”) submitted by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (the “Department”) to the Panel on January 5, 2016, which the Panel urges the Department to provide to Class Counsel, if it has not already done so. This Report also takes into consideration the comments of the County and the Plaintiffs in the Rosas case as well as some of the activities that the Sheriff and the Department have undertaken to implement provisions of the Action Plan after the end of the Initial Reporting Period.
The Agreement provides that “[w]hen the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant’s compliance with respect to the recommendation (‘Compliance Period’).” On December 11, 2015, the Panel certified that as of November 18, 2015, the Department had “adopted policies, directives, and practices that implement” the 67 recommendations in the Action Plan.2 The policies and directives were reviewed and approved by the Panel, and the Department provided the Panel with internal communications to verify that the
1 In October 2014, the Panel submitted an Implementation Plan to the Parties and the Court as required under the Agreement. This Report uses the term “Action Plan,” which is used by the Parties in the Agreement to refer to the Implementation Plan.
2 The “practices” were existing practices that were not the subject of a new policy or directive. As with the new policies and directives, the Panel will monitor the Department’s adherence to existing practices that satisfy provisions of the Action.
- 1 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:3571
policies and directives were communicated to Department personnel before November 18, 2015. In addition, the Department implemented the Panel’s recommendation regarding ethics training for existing personnel in the six month period prior to the Initial Reporting Period.
We agree, as Plaintiffs suggest, that “policies required in the Action Plan are the first step” and “sustained implementation of the policies and trainings will, however, serve as the true indicator of [the Department’s] progress.” Plaintiff’s Comments at 1. Prior to certifying the Department’s policies that implemented many of the 67 recommendations, the Panel reviewed and commented on numerous drafts submitted by the Department, and took into consideration the language of specific provisions of the Action Plan, the practicality of implementing other provisions, and the extent to which the proposed policies, individually and collectively, adequately addressed these recommendations. Although the Department should consider seriously any further revisions that Plaintiffs may suggest to enhance the existing policies so as “to ensure that prisoners ‘are not subjected to excessive force in the Jail Complex,’” Plaintiff’s Comments at 1. Quoting Action Plan at 2, the Panel believes that the policies it certified satisfy those portions of the requirements of the Action Plan.
There are an additional 35 recommendations in the Action Plan that were not implemented by the Department in the Initial Reporting Period. There are also two recommendations in the Action Plan that have been superseded by the Joint Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in the United States of America v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:15-cv-05903 (the “DOJ case”) pending before this Court.3
The Parties have agreed to use December 1, 2015 as the date by which the Panel will commence its monitoring of the Department’s compliance with the Panel’s recommendations that were implemented by the Department during the Initial Reporting Period. The Panel is still in the process of attempting to develop Compliance Measures by which it will determine the Department’s compliance with these recommendations for the 12-month and 18-month periods required under the Agreement.
The Panel believes that the Department has made substantial progress in implementing the recommendations of the Action Plan and reforming its Custody
3 §4.10 pertains to the extension of the Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution training to additional Department members in Custody Operations and §9.1 pertains to Safety Checks, both of which are governed by terms of the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case.
- 2 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:3572
Operations. We have had a constructive dialogue with, and the cooperation of, Department and County Counsel personnel responsible for the implementation of the recommendations in the Action Plan, toured the jails on multiple occasions, and have had numerous conversations with both inmates and staff. It is our strong impression that the Department has achieved a positive change in the culture in the jails with enhanced supervision, training, and professionalism, and we note that there has been a significant reduction in uses of force resulting in serious injuries, greater management accountability, and improved inmate-staff communications. The implementation of the recommendations in the Action Plan is, of course, only the first phase, and the monitoring of these recommendations will present its own challenges that will require the continuing cooperation of the Department.
- 3 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:3573
ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1. Leadership, Administration and Management
The four recommendations in this section (§1.1 through §1.4) of the Action Plan require that Custody Operations be headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility; the Sheriff be personally engaged in management of the Department’s jail facilities; Department managers be held accountable for any failures to address force problems in the jails; and the Department regularly report to the Board of Supervisors on use of force and its compliance with the Action Plan. Custody Operations has been headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility since well before December 1, 2015, and is continuing this structure under the new Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations who was hired to replace Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald.
The Department also provided policies regarding the responsibilities of the Sheriff, the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operation, and command staff, and described reporting practices to implement each of these provisions, effective December 1, 2015. These policies did not explicitly state that Unit Commanders “will be ‘held accountable should they fail to address use of force problems’” in their jail facilities, and the Department has agreed to revise the policies to incorporate the language from §1.3 of the Action Plan as requested by Plaintiff’s Counsel. The Panel does not believe that it is necessary for the Department to set forth in advance what penalties may be imposed if commanders do not address force problems in the jails, as long as the Department does, in fact, hold them accountable if they fail to address problems in their facilities.
The Panel has also discussed with County Counsel the County’s reporting to the Board of Supervisors, and we have advised County Counsel that we expect the County to make public reports to the Board at least quarterly on the Department’s use of force and the implementation of the Action Plan. Although it is possible that, in response to these public reports, the Board may raise issues about incidents that are the subject of litigation and that may be discussed in closed session under California law, the Department must publicly report on its compliance efforts. The Panel expects to review the County’s reports to the Board to ensure that they accurately reflect the Panel’s understanding of the status of the County’s implementation of the Action Plan.
- 4 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:3574
2. Use of Force Policies and Practices
The first recommendation in this section (§2.1) requires the Department to “have a separate, revised, free-standing, and logically organized Custody Force Manual for Custody Operations[.]” On October 16, 2015, the Department provided the Panel with a Custody Operations Force Manual with separate sections on Use of Force Policy, Use of Force with Special Populations, Restraints, Escorting, Chemical Agents, Reporting, Review, Special Weapons, and DeputyInvolved Shootings. This implements §2.1, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining twelve recommendations (§2.2 through §2.13) require the Department to adopt new use of force policies for Custody Operations. As noted in the introduction to this report, over the course of a number of months, the Department submitted drafts of proposed use of force polices to the Panel to implement these recommendations. The Panel reviewed the drafts, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved use of force policies for Custody Operations that implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Although, as noted by Plaintiffs, the Department’s policies do not always use “the specific language” set forth in the Action Plan (e.g., §§ 2.6, 2.8 and 2.10), nothing in the Agreement or the Action Plan requires that the Department’s policies track the exact wording in the Action Plan. The Panel believes that the Department’s policy to implement Section 2.6 satisfies the intent of the section as written, the policy to implement Section 2.8 imposes a duty on Department members that is reasonable and practical, and the policy to implement Section 2.10 is reflected in several provisions. See 7-01/020.0 (“Department members may only use authorized weapons for which they have been trained to promote a safe and effective response to situations”); 7-08/000.00 (“deployment of special weapons (which have been authorized by the Department)”); 7-08/010.00 (list of authorized special weapons and chemical agents).
Beginning in the next reporting period from, the Panel will review random completed “force packages” for force incidents after December 1, 2015, obtain reports from the Department,4 tour the basin facilities, and interview inmates and staff to assess the Department’s continuing Compliance with the specific use of force recommendations during the Compliance Period.5
4 The underlying data upon which the Department’s reports are based will be subject to audit by the Panel.
5 The process for assessing the Department’s continuing Compliance with other policies adopted by the Department to implement other provisions of the Action Plan discussed below will be similar.
- 5 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:3575
3. Training and Professional Development Related to Use of Force
The first four recommendations of this section (§3.1 through §3.4) require that Department members receive training in use of force policies, ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect, and new Department members receive additional Custody specific training in these areas in the Academy or the Jail Continuum in Custody Operations.
The Self-Assessment reports that the Department has waited to develop its use of force training until after the Panel approved the new use of force policies, and it anticipates offering the course in early 2016. The monitors have not yet reviewed either the curriculum or the training materials for the use of force training.
The Panel reviewed the Department’s proposed Ethics curriculum and training materials, attended several training sessions, and approved the Department’s Ethics training in May 2015. The Department had initiated ongoing in-service training prior to Panel approval of the curriculum or the training itself, but the panel determined that the changes in the training ultimately approved should not require those staff already trained to repeat the course. As the Department notes, for existing personnel, Compliance will be determined for a particular subject matter when a certain percentage of the existing personnel who are on duty as of the date the training is approved by the Panel have received the required training.6 Thus, compliance with §3.2, which requires such Ethics training for existing personnel, will be determined when a certain percentage (still to be determined by the Panel) of the existing personnel as of May 1, 2015, have received the Ethics training and have attended the refresher course as required by the Action Plan until the Agreement is terminated.
The Department reports that new deputies are required to complete a sixweek Jail Operations and Jail Operations Continuum course that includes custodyspecific, scenario based use-of-force training and training in ethics, professionalism and treating inmates with respect, and that new Custody Assistants receive training in these subjects during their nine-week Academy training. The Panel has not reviewed the curriculum or training materials for Jail Operations and Jail Operations Continuum in these subjects. For new personnel, Compliance will
6 This formula only applies to the initial training of existing personnel, and is subject to confirming that existing personnel receive refresher training as required by the Action Plan until the Agreement is terminated under Section VIII, ¶2.
- 6 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:3576
be determined as a percentage of the new members in Custody Operations who have received the new training.
§3.5 requires Unit Commanders to determine what additional training, counseling or mentoring may be required when a personnel complaint involving the use of force is resolved with a finding that it “Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better.” The Department provided the Panel with a draft policy to implement this recommendation, which it anticipates will be published in the next reporting period as part of the Department’s revision of its policies and procedures for handling inmate requests and grievances discussed below. The Panel recommends that the Department provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel with drafts of revised policies for handling inmate requests and grievances for Counsel’s input before finalizing and adopting these policies.
The Department issued 3-01/020.15 to require unit commanders to review new Department members within 90 days months of being initially assigned to a Unit and again before the end of their probationary period, to implement §3.6. The Panel certified the Department’s implementation of §3.6 as of December 1, 2015, as the policy technically meets the requirement of §3.6 that the initial assessment be within “six months of [a probationary employee] being assigned to Custody.” The Panel, however, shares the Plaintiff’s concern, that “[n]inety days may be an insufficient time in which to assess and employee’s conduct,” and the Department has agreed to extend the 90-day period to six months for the initial probationary review.
Compliance with §3.6 will require that Unit Commanders conduct meaningful and thorough assessments of the probationary employee’s performance within 90 days of the initial assignment and again “30 days prior to the end of the probationary period.” The Panel will randomly review initial and final assessments of probationary employees to assess compliance with this provision.
- 7 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:3577
4. Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners and Other Special Needs Populations
The first five recommendations (§4.1 through §4.5) require the Department to adopt specific use of force policies for Custody Operations for dealing with mentally ill prisoners. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department use of force policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
The next four recommendations (§4.6 through §4.9) require the Department to provide Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training for existing and new personnel in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution and on “identifying and working with mentally ill inmates.” On November 6, 2015, with input from a Subject Matter Expert in the DOJ case, the Panel approved the curriculum for the “De-escalation & Verbal Resolution Training (“DeVRT”) that the Department developed to address these recommendations.
The Department provided the Panel with training materials for DeVRT on December 28, 2015. The Panel provided its comments to the Department on February 2, 2016, and met with the Department on March 4, 2016, to review the training materials. Following that meeting, the Panel approved the Department’s DeVRT training materials.
Although, as reported by the Department, 427 Department members have received DeVRT training as of December 31, 2015. The Panel has advised the Department that these members may have to undergo some additional training in subjects included in the approved DeVRT curriculum that were not covered in the DeVRT training that occurred before the Panel approved the curriculum and training materials. At the meeting on March 4, 2016, the Department agreed that in 2017 these Department members will attend the first eight-hour refresher course, which will consist of the additional subjects added to the DeVRT training after November 6, 2015. Compliance will be determined once the required percentage of Department members have received the required DeVRT training though the 32hour course and the eight-hour refresher course. The members who received DeVRT training before the Panel approved the Department’s DeVRT training materials will be included in the denominator of the formula to calculate a compliance percentage, but will not be included in the numerator until they have completed the eight-hour refresher course.
- 8 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:3578
The final recommendation in this section (§4.10) is moot because the extension of the training in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution to additional personnel is required by the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case.
5. Data Tracking and Reporting of Force Incidents
The three recommendations in this section (§5.1 through §5.3) require the Department to track use of force investigations, reviews, and evaluations; provide for appropriate reviews of the evaluations of force incidents; and conduct additional investigation of discrepancies and unexplained tactical decisions. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
6. Inmate Grievances and Other Complaints of Excessive Force
The recommendations in this section (§6.1 through §6.20) require extensive changes in how the Department handles inmate grievances and requests for service. As noted in the Self-Assessment, on December 1, 2015, the Department submitted to the Panel a series of new policies that substantially revised the Department’s inmate grievance system. On December 21, 2015, the Panel met with the leadership from the Custody Division Grievance Team to review the policies. The Department has submitted successive drafts of the revised policies to the Panel for review and comments, and incorporated nearly all the Panel’s recommendations7 as well as recommendations of the Office of Inspector General. The Panel recommends that the Department provide the latest drafts of these policies to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for their review and comment before finally adopting these policies. With the exception of one recommendation discussed below, the Panel anticipates that the policies issued by Department in the next reporting period will substantially overhaul the inmate grievance system and implement the recommendations in section six of the Action Plan.
The policies reviewed by the Panel for the inmate grievance system contemplated by the Department do not “establish a centralized unit with sworn personnel, custody assistants, and civilian personnel” that would be “co-located” in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility and the Pitchess Detention Center as required by §6.16, although they do provide for some additional centralized oversight. Based upon the policies reviewed by the Panel and conversations with
7 The Department has provided reasonable explanations in those instances in which it did not adopt the Panel’s recommendations.
- 9 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:3579
Department personnel about these policies, the Panel recognizes that the Department has given a great deal of consideration about how best to organize the inmate grievance system going forward. The Panel has advised the Department that it will defer to the Department’s judgment on the organization of the system with the understanding that the Panel reserves the right to re-visit the Department’s compliance with §6.16 if the Panel concludes that the Department is not effectively and efficiently handling inmate grievances and requests for service.
7. Inmate Supervision, Staff Inmate Relations, and Communications with Prisoners
The three recommendations in this section (§7.1 through §7.3) require the Department to advise inmates of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Meeting available under the Department’s Conflict Resolution Policy; advise inmates of the results of Department investigations of inmate grievances; and ensure adequate avenues for constructive prisoner-staff communications. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
8. Retaliation Against Inmates
Two of the recommendations in this section (§8.1 and §8.3) require the Department to prohibit personnel from retaliating against inmates and require the Custody Force Review Committee to review evaluations of investigations of inmate grievances that force was used to retaliate against the inmate. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining section (§8.2) has not yet been implemented by the Department. It requires the Department to combine policies pertaining to “Complaints of Retaliation” into one section in the Custody Division Manual, which the Department plans as part of the overhaul of the inmate grievance system in the next Reporting Period.
9. Security Practices
The first recommendation in this section (§9.1), which pertains to cell checks, is moot because it is covered by the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case. The remaining two recommendations (§9.2 and §9.3) require the
- 10 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:3580
Department’s use of force policies to provide that (1) staff members involved in a force incident should not escort the inmate to medical, holding or segregation after the incident and (2) Department members have a duty to protect inmates and to intervene as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so. Although the Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015, they do not track the language of §9.3. As requested by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Department has advised us that it will add language consistent with this section to its Force Prevention Principles.
10. Management Presence in Housing Units
The two recommendations in this section (§10.1 and §10.2) require senior managers to periodically tour the jails and the Department to document visits by managers (above the rank of Sergeants) in electronic records or visitor logs. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
11. Management Review of Force Incidents & Data
The single recommendation in this section (§11.1) requires that the Custody Force Rollout Team’s involvement in reviewing the correctness of evaluations of force incidents not delay the Department’s investigation of such incidents. The Panel reviewed drafts of the Department policy to implement this recommendations and approved the policy, effective December 1, 2015.
12. Reviews and Investigations of Force Incidents
The first recommendation in this section (§12.1) requires that all Custody Sergeants receive additional training in conducting force investigations and reviewing force reports. The Department has not yet implemented this provision. The Department has provided the Panel with a course outline entitled Supervisor Orientation on Use of Force Investigations and Documentation, as well as powerpoint training materials. The Panel has provided its comments to the Department on these materials, which the Department is considering. The Panel anticipates that the Department will begin providing the additional training to Custody Sergeants in the next Reporting Period.
The next three recommendations (§12.2 through §12.4) require the Department to adopt policies and practices regarding the interviewing of inmates in
- 11 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:3581
connection with force incidents and the escorting of inmates involved in such incidents. The Panel reviewed drafts of the Department policy to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the polices, effective December 1, 2015.
The final recommendation requires that use of force investigative packages should have a standard order and format. Based upon the policy adopted by the Department, the Panel determined that the Department has implemented this recommendation, effective December 1, 2015.
13. Disposition of Use of Force Reviews and Staff Discipline Issues
The two recommendations in this section (§13.1 and §13.2) require the documentation of reasons and reporting to the Office of Inspector General whenever the Department does not terminate a member who has been found to have been dishonest, used excessive force, or violated the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). The Department did not implement these recommendations during the First Reporting Period. The Panel anticipates that the Department will implement these recommendations in the next Reporting Period.
14. Criminal Referrals and External Reviews of Use of Force Incidents
The two recommendations in this section (§14.1 and §14.2) require (1) an additional review of referrals of an inmate for criminal prosecution arising from an incident involving the use of force by a Department members and (2) timely referrals to the District Attorney of “officer misconduct that may amount to criminal violations.” The Panel reviewed and approved the Department directive to implement §14.1, effective December 1, 2015. The Department considers the timely referrals to the District Attorney’s office to be a practice in place as of December 1, 2015, which will be subject to monitoring by the Panel to assess the timeliness of the Department’s referrals for criminal prosecution.
15. Documentation and Recording of Force Incidents
The seven recommendations in this section (§15.1 through §15.7) require the Department to have specific polices and procedures regarding the reporting of force incidents by Department members, the separation of Department members before writing reports of force incidents, and the review of force reports by Watch Commanders/Supervising Lieutenants and Unit Commanders. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required
- 12 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:3582
changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015.
16. Health Care Assessments and Documentation Following Force Incidents
The three recommendations in this section (§16.1 through §16.3) require the Department to have policies for medical assessments of inmates and Department members involved in force incidents. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015. The Department has advised the Panel that it will revise 7-07/000 to make it clear that the documented medical assessment of the inmate must be completed “as soon as practical” as requested by Plaintiff’s Counsel.
17. Use of Restraints
The first recommendation in this section (§17.1) requires that the Custody Force Manual include “a separate section that sets forth the general principles governing the use of restraints” identified in this recommendation.” This Department has included such a separate section in the Manual, which implements §17.1, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining nine recommendations (§17.2 through §17.10) require the Department to adopt specific policies for the use of restraints in Custody Operations. The Panel reviewed drafts of use of force policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved policies that implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. With respect to the comments of Plaintiff’s Counsel, 7-03/030.00 does have the “limiting language” in the first paragraph that is required to address the requirement of §17.7 that “multi-point restraints8 may only be ordered where an inmate poses an immediate threat of serious harm to himself or others,” and it is reasonable to allow them to be used when it is “necessary to provide medical care as determined by medical staff.” It also provides in the first paragraph that “[u]nder no circumstances should custody personnel request that “medical staff medicate an inmate for security purposes” as required by §17.10. The Panel believes that the Department’s policy, which requires the “use of medically ordered restraint devices” to be “determined by medical or mental health staff,” is more restrictive than what is set forth in §17.9, which would permit a shift
8 Multi-point restraints are a category of Medically Ordered Restraint Devices under this policy.
- 13 -

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 141 Filed 04/07/16 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:3583
supervisor to authorize the use of a multi-point restraint if medical or mental health professionals are not available.
18. Adequate Staffing and Staff Rotations
The two recommendations in this section (§18.1 and §18.2) require the Department to (1) maintain Custody-wide rotations policies and (2) audit each unit’s compliance with its rotations policies. The existing policies did not require rotations of personnel among different jails. The Panel reviewed the drafts and approved the policy for Custody Operations that implements these two recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
19. Early Warning System Related to Use of Force
The three recommendations in this section (§19.1 through §19.3) require the Department to develop a formal Early Warning System to identify potentially problematic employees based upon objective criteria. The Department reports that it “anticipates that substantive provisions related to the Early Warning System will be ready for monitoring in late 2016.”
20. Protocols for Planned Use of Force
The three recommendations in this section (§20.1 through §20.3) require the Department to have two categories of force: Reactive Force and Planned Force. The Panel reviewed the drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved use of force policies for Custody Operations that implements these three recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. We note, however, that the force packages we have reviewed refer to force as “Directed” force and “Rescue” force rather than using the terms and “Reactive Force” and “Planned Force,” which are required in order for the Department to establish compliance with several of the Panel’s recommendations.
21. Organizational Culture Related to Use of Force
The recommendation in this section (§21.1) requires that the Department’s policies “provide that the Department will not transfer or assign a staff member to Custody as a formal or informal sanction for problem employees.” The Department reports that it “anticipates that policy consistent with this recommendation will be revised and published in the second quarter of 2016.”
- 14 -

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:3600

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2

RICHARD E. DROOYAN (Bar No. 65672) rdrooyan@scheperkim.com

3 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

4

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025 Telephone: (213) 613-4655

5 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

6 Monitor and on behalf of Monitors 7 Jeffrey Schwartz and Robert Houston

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13 ALEX ROSAS, et al.
14 Plaintiffs,
15

CV No. 12-00428 DDP PANEL’S SECOND REPORT

16

v.

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF 18 LEROY BACA, in his Official
Capacity,

19

Defendant.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PANEL'S SECOND REPORT

Case No. CV No. 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:3601

1

Pursuant to the Section V of the Settlement Agreement And Release of

2 Claims, the Monitors appointed by this Court, Jeffrey Schwartz, Robert Houston,

3 and Richard Drooyan (collectively the “Panel”) hereby submit the attached Panel’s

4 Second Report “evaluating Defendant’s Compliance with Action Plan” prepared by

5 the Panel and approved by the Court for the six-month period from January 1, 2016,

6 to December 31, 2016. This Report takes into consideration the comments from the

7 parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. The Panel is available to

8 answer any questions the Court may have regarding the Report at such times as are

9 convenient for the Court and the parties.

10

11 DATED: March 1, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

12

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

13

RICHARD E. DROOYAN

14

15

16

By: /s/ Richard E. Drooyan Richard E. Drooyan

17

Monitor and on behalf of Monitors Jeffrey

18

Schwartz and Robert Houston

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1
PANEL'S SECOND REPORT

Case No. CV No. 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:3602
PANEL’S SECOND REPORT
The Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement") between the parties in Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca, Case No. CV 12-00248-DPP (the "Rosas" case) provides that the Court-appointed Monitors (the "Panel") will "prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan ('Reports') [developed by the Panel] at intervals the Panel shall determine." This Report sets forth the status of, and assesses, the implementation of the provisions of the Action Plan (the "Plan") during the period from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016 (the "Second Reporting Period"), and is created for the purposes of the settlement of the Rosas case.
This Report takes into consideration letters received from the Parties in response to the draft of this report submitted to the Parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. By letter dated February 2, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's comments on the draft report, but advised the Panel that "Plaintiffs' ability to comment meaningfully [on the draft report] is hampered by Defendant's refusal to provide any of the documents" Plaintiffs previously requested. The Panel understands that County has objected to the scope of Plaintiffs' document requests. The Panel also understands that the Parties are attempting to negotiate a resolution of this issue. The Panel encourages the Parties to reach agreement on the relevant documents and information Plaintiffs need to be able to assess the Panel's conclusions about the Department's compliance with the Action Plan. In May 2014, the Parties retained the Panel "to prepare an Action Plan relating to certain policies and practices employed in the Los Angeles County Jails" in downtown Los Angeles (the "Downtown Jail Complex")1 in areas of concern to the Parties. Pursuant to Paragraph III of the Agreement, the Panel developed a Plan that was submitted to the Parties and the Court in October 2014.2 The Plan sets forth provisions that the Los Angeles County Sheriff is required to implement in the twenty-one areas discussed in this Report pertaining to the use of force by members of the Sheriff's Department (the "Department") in the Downtown Jail Complex.
The Agreement contemplated that many of the provisions of the Plan would be implemented within six months after the Panel submitted the Plan to the Court and the parties,3 but the Agreement did not receive Final Approval from this Court until April 21, 2015. Further, as discussed in the Panel's Report submitted to the Court on April 7, 2016, for the Initial Reporting Period from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, the Agreement contemplates a two-step process of Department's "implementation" of the Panel's recommendations followed by the Panel's monitoring the Department's "compliance." It provides that "[w]hen the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant's compliance with respect to that recommendation ('Compliance Period')." Agreement, Paragraph VIII. Thus, for example, the Department must
1 The jails in the Downtown Jail Complex are Men's Central Jail ("MCJ"), the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") and the Inmate Reception Center ("IRC").
2 The Panel used the term "Implementation Plan" rather than "Action Plan." 3 See Paragraph VIII(1) ("It is anticipated. . .that Defendant will implement and be judged to be in compliance with numerous recommendations in six months or less from the submission of the Action Plan to the Court").
1

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:3603
first adopt new use of force policies that implement the recommendations in Section 2 of the Plan. Once the Panel certifies that the Department has adopted the required policies, the Panel monitors the Department's use of force in the Downtown Jail Complex to assess its compliance with these policies.
Although the Agreement contemplates the Panel will commence its monitoring new policies once it certifies that they have been adopted by the Department, the Panel recognized that the Department also needed to develop and commence the new training required by the Action Plan before the Panel could assess the Department's compliance with these policies. For example, the Department needed to commence the new training required by Sections 3 ("Training and Professional Development Related to Use of Force") and 4 (specialized training on the "Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners and Other Special Needs Populations") of the Action Plan before the Panel commenced monitoring compliance with policies encompassed in Section 2 ("Use of Force Policies and Practices"), Section 9 ("Security Practices"), Section 15 ("Documentation and Recording of Force Incidents"), and Section 17 ("Use of Restraints"). Similarly, the Panel concluded that the Department needed to develop new training "in conducting use of force investigations" and "the new protocols for conducting such investigations" required by Section 12.1 before it commenced monitoring of the protocols that were adopted to implement the rest of Section 12 ("Reviews and Investigations of Use of Force Incidents"), Section 15 ("Documentation and Recording of Force Incidents"), and Section 16 ("Health Care Assessments").
The Panel also recognized that the Parties needed a set of Compliance Measures by which the Panel would measure the Department's compliance with the policies adopted to implement the Action Plan. Unlike in United States of America v. County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, CV No. 15-05903 (the "DOJ case"), the Parties in the Rosas case did not agree on Compliance Measures before they entered into the Settlement Agreement. Thus the Panel needed to develop Compliance Measures for the 105 provisions in the 21 different subject matter areas in the Plan that covered training, policies, and practices, with input from the parties to ensure that the final Compliance Measures were both meaningful and achievable. The complex and time-consuming process to develop and finalize the Compliance Measures took several months before the Panel concluded that the Compliance Measures satisfied this criteria. The Panel gave both Parties several opportunities to critique and comment on the various drafts of the Compliance Measures, and incorporated many of the changes requested by the Parties. On November 17, 2016, the Panel adopted the final Compliance Measures that they will use to determine the Department's compliance with the provisions of the Plan for the twelve- and eighteen-month periods required by the Settlement Agreement.
As noted in the Panel's First Report, on December 11, 2015, the Panel certified that the Department had "adopted policies, directives, and practices that implement" 67 of the recommendations in the Action Plan, including all of the use of force related policy recommendations. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the certification was as of December 1, 2015. Also during the First Reporting Period, the Panel approved the Department's Ethics training program, although it omitted the program from its December 11, 2015 certification.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:3604
On December 19, 2016, the Panel certified that the Department adopted policies, directives, and practices to implement another 33 recommendations in nine areas during the Second Reporting Period from January 1, 2016. At the same time, the Panel also certified the Department's Ethics training program.
As of December 19, 2016, the Department has implemented 101 of the recommendations in the Plan. The Panel is of the view that two of the recommendations, §4.10 (expansion of conflict resolution training) and §9.1 (security checks), have been superseded by the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in the DOJ case, but there is a disagreement among the parties about whether the Panel is required to monitor the Department's compliance with §9.1, which sets forth requirements for safety checks that are encompassed by the terms of the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case. Absent instructions to the contrary from the Court, the Panel is not intending to monitor the Department's safety checks that are being monitored in the DOJ case.
There are four additional recommendations that have not been implemented by the Department as of December 31, 2016, pertaining to the use of force investigations training required by §12.1, and development of a formal Early Warning System as required by §§19.1 through 19.3. The Panel met with the Department on December 19, 2016, to discuss concerns about the use of force investigations training and to receive a status report on the Early Warning System set forth in this report.
There is one significant remaining issue that the Panel believes the parties need to resolve. Under the Settlement Agreement, all recommendations implemented during the same six-month period are grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with the "consecutive" twelve-month period, no matter how disparate the recommendations may be. Under this "cross-collateralization," a failure to comply with a recommendation in one area during a twelve-month period means that the twelve-month time period starts over for all recommendations that were implemented in the same six-month period. This is the case regardless of the relationship between the recommendations implemented in the same period.
Plaintiffs have expressed the view that, under the Agreement, the Department must demonstrate compliance with all of the 105 recommendations for twelve consecutive months because not all of the recommendations were implemented within twelve months after the Plan was submitted to the parties and the Court, notwithstanding that there was no Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement for six months after the Plan was submitted. Based upon the many new policies and systems the Department is implementing across 21 categories in the Action Plan, the additional training required, and the Compliance percentages that the Department is required to meet, the Panel is doubtful that, despite the Department's best efforts, it will be able to comply with all 105 recommendations for twelve consecutive months in the foreseeable future.
As noted by Plaintiffs, in a meeting with the Parties last year the Panel expressed the view that "it is appropriate to consider organizing the compliance groupings (buckets) in a different way from that set out in the Settlement" rather than "grouping them based on the time of implementation." Plaintiffs report that they have "agreed to amend the termination provision
3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:3605
by changing to subject matter buckets," and that that the Parties "are in the process of negotiating how to amend the consent decree provision on compliance and termination." The Panel urges the parties to develop a meaningful and achievable framework for determining the Department's compliance under the Settlement Agreement.
As discussed in more detail below, during the Second Reporting Period, the Panel visited the jails in the Downtown Jail Complex on multiple occasions and met with inmates and staff during those visits, observed training several sessions, and met with the leadership of Custody operations on several occasions to provide feedback on the Panel's observations. The Panel also reviewed force packages pertaining to incidents involving inmates who were interviewed by the Panel and/or identified by Plaintiffs as having potentially problematic issues. The Panel also reviewed and recommended revisions to the Department's curriculum and training materials for the Conflict Resolution (known as DeVRT), and use of force training programs. The Panel’s recommendations were generally well received by the Department and both those training programs were approved. The Panel also reviewed and commented on the use of force investigations training, but did not finally approve that training during the Second Reporting Period. The Panel also attended training sessions for DeVRT and for the new use of force policies, and made a number of suggestions for enhancing the training sessions.
The Panel also reviewed multiple drafts of policies adopted by the Department to create a substantially revamped new system for the handling of inmate grievances and requests. The Panel recommended a number of revisions to the grievance system and policies, which were generally adopted by the Department. The Panel ultimately approved the new grievance system, which was implemented by the Department on July 15, 2016.
Finally, as noted, the Panel drafted and revised proposed Compliance Measures to set forth how the Panel would determine the Department's compliance the Action Plan. On November 17, 2016, the Panel promulgated Compliance Measures for the 105 recommendations that will be the subject of the Panel's monitoring activities beginning as of January 1, 2017.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:3606
ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1. Leadership, Administration and Management
The four recommendations in this section (§1.1 through §1.4) of the Action Plan require that Custody Operations be headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility, the Sheriff be personally engaged in management of the Department’s jail facilities, Department managers be held accountable for any failures to address force problems in the jails, and the Department regularly report to the Board of Supervisors on use of force and its compliance with the Action Plan. Custody Operations has been headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility since well before December 1, 2015, and is continuing this structure under Kelly Harrington, the new Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations, who was hired to replace Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald.
The Department also provided policies regarding the responsibilities of the Sheriff, the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operation, and command staff, and described reporting practices to implement each of these provisions, effective December 1, 2015. The Department has since revised CDM 2-01/030.00 to address the requirements of §1.3 of the Action Plan to require Unit Commanders to be "held accountable should they fail to address use of force problems" in their jail facilities.
2. Use of Force Policies and Practices
The first recommendation in this section (§2.1) requires the Department to "have a separate, revised, free-standing, and logically organized Custody Force Manual for Custody Operations[.]" On October 16, 2015, the Department provided the Panel with a Custody Operations Force Manual with separate sections on Use of Force Policy, Use of Force with Special Populations, Restraints, Escorting, Chemical Agents, Reporting, Review, Special Weapons, and Deputy-Involved Shootings. This implements §2.1, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining twelve recommendations (§2.2 through §2.13) require the Department to adopt new use of force policies for Custody Operations. The Department submitted multiple drafts of proposed use of force polices to the Panel to implement these recommendations. The Panel reviewed the drafts, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved use of force policies for Custody Operations that implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
During the Second Reporting Period, the Panel visited the Downtown Jail Complex on multiple occasions, interviewed inmates identified by Plaintiffs as individuals with knowledge of or complaints about excessive use of force by Department personnel, and talked to many other inmates generally about these issues. The Panel also reviewed force packages regarding incidents involving the inmates identified by Plaintiffs and did not find any instances of excessive force by Department personnel in these force packages. Although there were some complaints from the other inmates about, for example, food and responsiveness to grievances,
5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:3607
with one exception, the Panel did not hear complaints from them about excessive use of force by Department personnel. With respect to the one exception, the Department's records seemed to refute the inmate's claim as to where and when the force incident took place. A number of inmates who had been in the jails in the past volunteered that, with respect to the use of force, "things were a lot better" in the jails this time around, and that Deputy interactions with the inmates were more positive and respectful, and reflect a fundamental and positive change in the culture in the Downtown Jail Complex and the interactions between staff and the inmate populations.
Because the Compliance Measures were not issued and the use of force training was not approved until the fourth quarter of 2016, the Panel did not randomly select force packages for review in the Second Reporting Period. As of January 1, 2017, the Panel commenced monitoring the Department's compliance with the Compliance Measures by reviewing completed force packages for force incidents in 2016.
3. Training and Professional Development Related to Use of Force
The first four recommendations of this section (§3.1 through §3.4) require that Department members receive training in use of force policies; and ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect; and that new Department members receive additional Custody specific training in these areas in the Academy or the Jail Continuum in Custody Operations.
The Panel reviewed the Department’s proposed Ethics curriculum and training materials, attended several training sessions, and approved the Department’s Ethics training in May 2015. Although not certified until December 2016, compliance with §3.2, which requires such ethics training for existing personnel, will be determined when 90% of the existing personnel as of May 1, 2015, have received the ethics training and attended the refresher course as required by the Action Plan until the Agreement is terminated.
During the Second Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed the Department's proposed curriculum and training materials for its use of force policies, and attend a training session in December 2016. The Panel certified the Department's compliance with §3.1, which requires such training for existing personnel, as of December 16, 2016. Compliance with §3.1 will be determined when 90% of the existing personnel as of October 1, 2016, have received the use of force training and have attended the refresher course as required by the Plan until the Agreement is terminated.
In the First Reporting Period, the Department reported that new deputies are required to complete a six-week Jail Operations and Jail Operations Continuum course that includes custody-specific, scenario-based use-of-force training and training in ethics, professionalism and treating inmates with respect, and that new Custody Assistants receive training in these subjects during their nine-week Academy training. For the ethics and use of force training of new personnel, compliance will require that 95% of the new members assigned to Custody Operations after July 1, 2015 receive the training.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:3608
§3.5 requires Unit Commanders to determine what additional training, counseling or mentoring may be required when a personnel complaint involving the use of force is resolved with a finding that it "Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better." The Department adopted a policy in CDM 8-01/020.00 as part of its new grievance system to implement this recommendation, which was approved by the Panel and certified as of December 19, 2016.
To implement §3.6, the Department issued 3-01/020.15 to require unit commanders to review new Department members within 90 days of being initially assigned to a Unit and again before the end of their probationary period. The Panel certified the Department’s implementation of §3.6 as of December 1, 2015, as the policy technically meets the requirement of §3.6 that the initial assessment be within "six months of [a probationary employee] being assigned to Custody." In the Panel's First Report, the Panel noted a concern expressed by Plaintiffs that "[n]inety days may be an insufficient time in which to assess and an employee’s conduct." As a result, the Department agreed to extend the 90-day period to six months for initial probationary review; it adopted a new Department-wide policy on September 22, 2016 in the Manual of Policy and Procedures, but had not yet finalized a revised 3-01/020.15 for the Custody Operations as of the end of the Second Reporting Period. Compliance with §3.6 will require that Unit Commanders conduct meaningful and thorough assessments of the probationary employees performance within six months of the initial assignment and again "30 days prior to the end of the probationary period." The Panel will randomly review initial and final assessments of probationary employees to assess compliance with this provision.
4. Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners and Other Special Needs Populations
The first five recommendations (§4.1 through §4.5) require the Department to adopt specific use of force policies for Custody Operations for dealing with mentally ill prisoners. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department use of force policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and certified that the Department had implemented these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
The next four recommendations (§4.6 through §4.9) require the Department to provide Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training for existing and new personnel in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution and on "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates." On March 4, 2016, the Panel approved the Department's "De-escalation & Verbal Resolution Training" ("DeVRT") materials to implement these recommendations. Many Department members have commented that they found the DeVRT training to be very valuable and have used what they learned in the training to avoid having to use force in potentially problematic situations.
At a meeting on March 4, 2016, it was agreed that Department members who received the DeVRT training before it was finally approved will attend the first eight-hour refresher course that is required every other year, and that the refresher course will include the additional subjects added to the DeVRT training after November 6, 2015. Compliance will be determined once 90% of Department members in Custody as of July 1, 2015 have received the required DeVRT training. The members who received DeVRT training before the Panel approved the Department’s DeVRT training materials will be included in the denominator of the formula to
7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:3609
calculate a compliance percentage, but will not be included in the numerator until they have completed the eight-hour refresher course. In addition 95% of new members sworn in after July 1, 2015, must take the course and, if they took the course before the final materials were approved, they must attend the first eight-hour refresher course.
The final recommendation in this section (§4.10) is moot because the extension of the training in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution to additional personnel is required by the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case.
5. Data Tracking and Reporting of Force Incidents
The three recommendations in this section (§5.1 through §5.3) require the Department to track use of force investigations, reviews, and evaluations; provide for appropriate reviews of the evaluations of force incidents; and conduct additional investigation of discrepancies and unexplained tactical decisions. The Panel certified that the Department had adopted policies to implement these recommendations effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring will begin as of January 1, 2017.
6. Inmate Grievances and Other Complaints of Excessive Force
The recommendations in this section (§6.1 through §6.20) require extensive changes in how the Department handles inmate grievances and requests for service. On July 15, 2016 the Department issued a new "Inmate Grievance Manual," which is Volume 8 of the Custody Division Manual, to implement a new grievance system. It was approved by the Panel after extensive discussions with the Department and reviews of multiple drafts of the policies ultimately adopted by the Department. On December 19, 2016, the Panel certified that the Department had adopted policies and practices to implement the recommendations in this section. Monitoring of the grievance system will commence as of January 1, 2017, now that the Department has had nearly six months to implement the new system.
One issue that remains to be resolved is whether grievances about the timeliness of medical care are subject to monitoring by the Panel. There is no disagreement that grievances about the timeliness of the Department's delivery of requests for medical care are subject to monitoring, and the Panel does not believe that it is qualified to assess grievances about the quality of medical care. Absent agreement of the parties, the Panel intends to monitor all grievances about the timeliness of medical care.
The policies adopted by the Department for the new inmate grievance system do not "establish a centralized unit with sworn personnel, custody assistants, and civilian personnel" that would be "co-located" in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility and the Pitchess Detention Center as required by §6.16, although they do provide for some additional centralized oversight. As the Panel stated in its initial Report to the Court, it is willing to defer to the Department’s judgment on the organization of the grievance system with the understanding that the Panel reserves the right to re-visit the Department’s compliance with §6.16 if the Department is not effectively and efficiently handling inmate grievances and requests for service.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:3610
7. Inmate Supervision, Staff Inmate Relations, and Communications with Prisoners
The three recommendations in this section (§7.1 through §7.3) require the Department to advise inmates of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Meeting available under the Department’s Conflict Resolution Policy; advise inmates of the results of Department investigations of inmate grievances; and ensure adequate avenues for constructive prisoner-staff communications. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies and practices to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Because these policies are, in effect, part of the grievance system, the Panel delayed monitoring until the Panel commences monitoring the new grievance system.
8. Retaliation Against Inmates
Two of the recommendations in this section (§8.1 and §8.3) require the Department to prohibit personnel from retaliating against inmates and require the Custody Force Review Committee to review evaluations of investigations of inmate grievances that force was used to retaliate against the inmate. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining section (§8.2) requires the Department to combine polices pertaining to "Complaints of Retaliation" into one section in the Custody Division Manual. On July 15, 2016, the Department adopted a revised policy in CDM §8-03/050 (Grievance of Retaliation) as part of the inmate new grievance system. On December 19, 2016, the Panel certified that the Department had implemented this recommendation.
9. Security Practices
The Panel is of the view that the first recommendation in this section (§9.1), which pertains to cell checks, is moot because it is covered by the Settlement Agreement in the DOJ case, and is being monitored in that case. The Panel notes that Plaintiffs object to the Panel's position and believe that "the monitors should still monitor compliance with that provision, as amended through the US DOJ agreement." Absent a directive from the Court, the Panel is not intending to monitor compliance with §9.1.
The remaining two recommendations (§9.2 and §9.3) require the Department’s use of force policies to provide that (1) staff members involved in a force incident should not escort the inmate to medical, holding or segregation after the incident and (2) Department members have a duty to protect inmates and to intervene as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so. The Panel reviewed drafts of Department policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and ultimately approved the policies, effective December 1, 2015. The Department has now added language consistent with §9.3 to CDM §7-01.010 (Force Prevention Principles) to track the language of §9.3.
9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:3611
10. Management Presence in Housing Units
The two recommendations in this section (§10.1 and §10.2) require senior managers to periodically tour the jails and the Department to document visits by managers (above the rank of Sergeants) in electronic records or visitor logs. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring will commence as of January 1, 2017.
11. Management Review of Force Incidents & Data
The single recommendation in this section (§11.1) requires that the Custody Force Rollout Team’s involvement in reviewing the correctness of evaluations of force incidents not delay the Department’s investigation of such incidents. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement this recommendation, effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring will commence as of January 1, 2017.
12. Reviews and Investigations of Force Incidents
The first recommendation in this section (§12.1) requires that all Custody Sergeants receive additional training in conducting force investigations and reviewing force reports. The Panel has reviewed the Department curriculum, training materials, and training to implement this recommendation, and met with the Department on December 15, 2016, to discuss some lingering concerns. The Panel has been working with the Department to enhance the training, and the Department reports that is has incorporated the Panel's recent suggestions in the training. The Panel is scheduled to attend an investigative training session for sergeants later this month. Once the training is approved, compliance will be determined as set forth in the Compliance Measures when 90% of the Sergeants assigned to Custody Operations as of October 1, 2016, have received the training. In addition, 95% of the Sergeants promoted after that date must receive the training.
The next three recommendations (§12.2 through §12.4) require the Department to adopt policies and practices regarding the interviewing of inmates in connection with force incidents and the escorting of inmates involved in such incidents. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Although the Panel has not approved the force investigations training course, the Panel believes that monitoring of these recommendations should commence as of January 1, 2017.
The final recommendation requires that use of force investigative packages should have a standard order and format. The Panel certified that the Department adopted a policy to implement this recommendation, effective December 1, 2015. All of the force packages reviewed by the Panel during the Second Reporting Period, including the force packages reviewed by the Monitor in the DOJ case during this period, have had a consistent order and format.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:3612
13. Disposition of Use of Force Reviews and Staff Discipline Issues
The two recommendations in this section (§13.1 and §13.2) require the documentation of reasons and reporting to the Office of Inspector General whenever the Department does not terminate a member who has been found to have been dishonest, used excessive force, or violated the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). During the Second Reporting Period, the Department adopted CDM §4-10/005.00 to implement these recommendations. The Panel certified the Department's implementation of these recommendations as of December 16, 2016. Monitoring of these recommendations will commence as of January 1, 2017.
14. Criminal Referrals and External Reviews of Use of Force Incidents
The two recommendations in this section (§14.1 and §14.2) require (1) an additional review of referrals of an inmate for criminal prosecution arising from an incident involving the use of force by a Department member and (2) timely referrals to the District Attorney of "officer misconduct that may amount to criminal violations." The Panel certified that the Department directive 15-006 implemented §14.1, effective December 1, 2015. The Department considers the timely referrals to the District Attorney’s office to be a practice in place as of December 1, 2015. Monitoring of these recommendations will commence as of January 1, 2017.
15. Documentation and Recording of Force Incidents
The seven recommendations in this section (§15.1 through §15.7) require the Department to have specific policies and procedures regarding the reporting of force incidents by Department members, the separation of Department members before writing reports of force incidents, and the review of force reports by Watch Commanders/Supervising Lieutenants and Unit Commanders. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring of these recommendations will commence as of January 1, 2017.
16. Health Care Assessments and Documentation Following Force Incidents
The three recommendations in this section (§16.1 through §16.3) require the Department to have policies for medical assessments of inmates and Department members involved in force incidents. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. The Department has now revised CDM 707/000.00, as requested by Plaintiffs' counsel, to make it clear that the documented medical assessment of the inmate must be completed "as soon as practical."
17. Use of Restraints
The first recommendation in this section (§17.1) requires that the Custody Force Manual include "a separate section that sets forth the general principles governing the use of restraints"
11

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:3613
identified in this recommendation. This Department included such a separate section in the Manual, effective December 1, 2015.
The remaining nine recommendations (§17.2 through §17.10) require the Department to adopt specific policies for the use of restraints in Custody Operations. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies that implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring of these recommendations will commence as of January 1, 2017.
18. Adequate Staffing and Staff Rotations
The two recommendations in this section (§18.1 and §18.2) require the Department to (1) maintain Custody-wide rotations policies and (2) audit each unit’s compliance with its rotations policies. The Panel certified that the Department adopted a policy for Custody Operations that implements these two recommendations effective December 1, 2015. Monitoring of these recommendations will commence as of January 1, 2017.
19. Early Warning System Related to Use of Force
The three recommendations in this section (§19.1 through §19.3) require the Department to develop a formal Early Warning System to identify potentially problematic employees based upon objective criteria. The Panel met with the Department on December 15, 2016, to discuss the status of the Early Warning System. In order to develop a usable system in the next reporting period, the Department is rebuilding the current Personal Performance Index ("PPI") based system on a new WEB-based platform that will be able to generate reports on a unit basis and identify potentially problematic employees. The Department reports that "the new platform has been completed and is in the testing stages." Although it will not automatically generate "alerts," the Panel believes that it can function as an effective Early Warning System as long as the Department requires Compliance Lieutenants to generate, and Unit Commanders to review, tailored reports at least monthly. Monitoring of the Early Warning System will require the Department to provide evidence that the reports are generated and reviewed timely.
20. Protocols for Planned Use of Force
The three recommendations in this section (§20.1 through §20.3) require the Department to have two categories of force: Reactive Force and Planned Force. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these recommendations effective December 1, 2015. The Panel noted, however, that the force packages we reviewed during the Second Reporting Period continue to refer to force as "Directed Force" and "Rescue Force" rather than just using the terms "Reactive Force" and "Planned Force." The Department has explained that these terms are used for statistical purposes and are not referenced in the Department's use of force policies.
The Panel believes the comingling of these terms will confuse staff because the Action Plan requires "planned" and "reactive" force, which are used in the Department's policies. The Panel has recommended that the Department remove all references to force other than reactive or planned from procedures, curriculum, use of force forms, and supervisor review documents. The Department, however, remains of the view that it is appropriate to "to continue to use 'directed'
12

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 148 Filed 03/01/17 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:3614
and 'rescue' force to collect data and to further categorize, where relevant, the primary categories of Planned and Reactive Force" and that they "are important indicators to those who evaluate force statistics." 21. Organizational Culture Related to Use of Force
This section (§21.1) requires that the Department’s policies "provide that the Department will not transfer or assign a staff member to Custody as a sanction for problem employees." On September 22, 2016, the Department adopted CDM §3-02/020.50, which the Panel certified effective December 16, 2016. Monitoring will commence on January 1, 2017.
13

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:4100

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2

RICHARD E. DROOYAN (Bar No. 65672) 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

3 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025

4

Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

5 Email: rdrooyan@scheperkim.com

6 Monitor and on behalf of Monitors 7 Jeffrey Schwartz and Robert Houston

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12

13 ALEX ROSAS, et al.

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF
17 LEROY BACA, in his Official Capacity,
18 Defendant.
19

CV No. 12-00428 DDP PANEL’S THIRD REPORT

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PANEL'S THIRD REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:4101

1

Pursuant to the Section V of the Settlement Agreement And Release of

2 Claims, the Monitor appointed by this Court, Jeffrey Schwartz, Robert Houston, and

3 Richard Drooyan (collectively the “Panel”) hereby submit the attached Panel’s

4 Report “evaluating Defendant’s Compliance with Action Plan” prepared by the

5 Panel and approved by the Court for the twelve-month period from January 1, 2017,

6 to December 31, 2017. This Report takes into consideration the comments from the

7 parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. The Panel is available to

8 answer any questions the Court may have regarding my Report at such times as are

9 convenient for the Court and the parties.

10

11 DATED: March 22, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

12

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

13

RICHARD E. DROOYAN

14

15

16

By: /s/ Richard E. Drooyan Richard E. Drooyan

17

Monitor and on behalf of Monitors Jeffrey

18

Schwartz and Robert Houston

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1
PANEL'S THIRD REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:4102
PANEL’S THIRD REPORT
The Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") between the Parties in Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca, Case No. CV 12-00248-DPP (the "Rosas" case) provides that the Court-appointed Monitors (the "Panel") will "prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan ('Reports') [developed by the Panel] at intervals the Panel shall determine." This Report sets forth the Panel's assessment of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan during the period from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017 (the "Third Reporting Period"), and it is created for the purposes of the settlement of the Rosas case. It takes into consideration comments received from the Parties regarding the draft sent to them on March 2, 2018, in accordance with Paragraph V of the Settlement Agreement.
In May 2014, the Parties retained the Panel "to prepare an Action Plan relating to certain policies and practices employed in the Los Angeles County Jails" in downtown Los Angeles (the "Downtown Jail Complex")1 in areas of concern to the Parties. Pursuant to Paragraph III of the Agreement, the Panel developed an Implementation Plan that was submitted to the Parties and the Court in October 2014.2 The Plan sets forth provisions that the Los Angeles County Sheriff is required to implement in twenty-one areas by members of the Sheriff's Department (the "Department") in the Downtown Jail Complex. The Plan was approved by the Court on April 7, 2016.
The Settlement Agreement contemplates a two-step process involving the Department's "implementation" of the Panel's recommendations followed by the Panel's monitoring of the Department's "compliance" with the recommendations. It provides that "[w]hen the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant's compliance with respect to that recommendation ('Compliance Period')." Agreement, Paragraph VIII.
The Department has implemented 102 of the Panel's recommendations through December 31, 2017.3 Two of the recommendations, Section 4.10 (expansion of conflict resolution training) and Section 9.1 (security checks), have been superseded by the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in the case filed by the United States Department of Justice. There are three additional recommendations pertaining to the development of the Early Warning System required by Sections 19.1 through 19.3 that have not been implemented by the Department as of December 31, 2017.
1 The jails in the Downtown Jail Complex are Men's Central Jail ("MCJ"), the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") and the Inmate Reception Center ("IRC").
2 In developing the plan, the Panel used the term "Implementation Plan" rather than "Action Plan." This report uses the terms "Action Plan" or "Plan" to refer to the Panel's plan.
3 The Panel has certified the Department's implementation of 101 of the Panel's recommendations. Although not formally certified, the Panel approved the Department's implementation of Paragraph 12.1, which requires that Custody sergeants receive 16 hours of training in conducting force investigations, after attending training sessions in February 2017.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:4103
Although the Agreement contemplates that the Panel will commence its monitoring of the Department's new policies once it has certified that the policies have been adopted by the Department, the Panel recognized that the Department needed to develop and commence new training before the Panel could assess the Department's compliance with the new policies. During the Third Reporting Period, the Panel attended several training sessions and approved the Department's force investigations training, and reviewed and approved the Department's curriculum and training materials for the refresher training courses in ethics, conflict resolution (known as DeVRT), and use of force required by the Plan.4
The Panel visited the Downtown Jail Complex on March 21, 2017 through March 23, 2017, June 21, 2017 through June 22, 2017, August 31, 2017, and November 9, 2017. The Panel spoke informally with inmates while touring the jails and also conducted formal interviews with inmates that were not in the presence of Department personnel. The Panel debriefed the Custody leadership on the Panel's observations of conditions in the jails, and the issues raised by inmates during the interviews. The Panel also reviewed force packages and grievances pertaining to incidents involving the inmates who were interviewed by the Panel to determine if any of the incidents involved problematic force or misconduct by Department personnel.
On June 21, 2017 the Panel met with Sheriff Jim McDonnell to discuss his oversight of the Department's jail operations; the Department's implementation of, and compliance with, the Action Plan recommendations; and the Panel's observations concerning conditions in the Downtown Jail Complex and the nature and extent of the force used by Department personnel against inmates in the jails. The Panel also had multiple meeting with the Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator and met with the Inmate Grievance Teams at Men's Central Jail ("MCJ") and the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") to review the Department's implementation of its new grievance polices. As discussed below, the Panel noted progress in the Department's tracking and handling of inmate grievances.
During the Third Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed 75 completed force packages that were selected by the Panel from a comprehensive list of force incidents compiled by the Department. The packages were selected without input from the Department. The Panel subsequently met with Custody Commanders to review the force that was used in incidents that were of concern to the Panel. The reporting of the force, the supervisors' investigations, and the commanders' reviews were also discussed with the Commanders. Although there were issues with the Department's tactics in some cases that may have contributed to the use of force that could have been avoided, the Panel found only one incident where the force may have been excessive.
One of the problems encountered by the Panel in reviewing the force packages was the delay between the dates of the force incidents and the completion of the force packages, which was often over nine months. This meant that the Panel was reviewing uses of force by Department members who had not received the new DeVRT and use of force training and force investigations were conducted by sergeants who had not received the new investigations training, which limited the usefulness of the feedback the Panel could provide to the Department. In order
4 The use of force refresher training was approved in January 2018.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:4104
to reduce the delay, the Department decided to focus its investigative resources on force incidents occurring after January 1, 2017. In addition, it decided that incidents captured on videotape that involve minimal force,5 no injuries to inmates, and no evidence of misconduct would be subject to more limited investigations and expedited reviews. The Department dedicated considerable efforts to developing the plan for the investigation of these "NonCategorical Incidents," which the Department adopted after it was reviewed and approved by the Panel.6 The focus on the 2017 incidents and expedited handling of the Non-Categorical Incidents has resulted in shortening the lag time and allowing the Panel to review the force sooner, often within six months of the incident.
In the course of reviewing force packages and monitoring the Department's compliance with the provisions in the Action Plan, it became apparent to the Panel that the existing 108-page Monitoring Plan was unwieldly and unworkable to assess the Department's Compliance with the 100+ provisions of the Action Plan. For example, some provisions relating to the use, reporting or investigation of force were subject to the Panel's direct reviews of force packages selected by the Panel, and other provisions were subject to the Panel's audits of reviews by the Department of other randomly selected force packages. Since the Compliance Measures are not part of the Settlement Agreement or the Action Plan, after several meetings and discussions with the Parties, the Panel decided to revise the Compliance Measures for the purpose of assessing the Department's compliance with the Action Plan.
The Panel proposed revised Compliance Measures to the Parties on December 19, 2017. Although there are 21 areas in the Action Plan, the revised Compliance Measures are organized around conceptually related topics. Under the revised Compliance Measures, the Panel will qualitatively assess the use, reporting and investigation of force by Department members based upon the applicable provisions in the Action Plan (the "vertical" approach) and then determine compliance with the Plan based upon quantitative thresholds. The Panel will also assess the Department's compliance with specific provisions of the Plan across all of the force incidents (the "horizontal" approach). The Panel believes that this "hybrid" approach will facilitate the Panel's monitoring and reporting of the Department's compliance with each of the provisions of the Action Plan.
The Panel received comments about the revised Compliance Measures from the County by letter dated December 26, 2017, and from Plaintiffs' counsel by letter dated January 18, 2018. Pursuant to the Panel's request, to facilitate the Panel's review of force packages under the revised Compliance Measures and ensure that the investigating sergeants address all applicable provisions of the Action Plan, the Department developed a "Use of Force Packet Review" checklist that tracks the Plan. The checklist is currently used by the Department to review the force packages that are sent to the Panel, and it is intended to be used by sergeants who conduct force investigations in 2018.
5 For example, when a Deputy uses a firm grip to guide a passively resisting inmate back into a cell.
6 The Panel understands that the plan was also reviewed and approved by the Office of Inspector General.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:4105
As of the date of the filing of this Report, the Panel has not issued the revised Compliance Measures pending the resolution of an on-going dispute between the Parties over Plaintiffs' access to the Department's records. In early 2017, Plaintiffs' Counsel advised the Panel that their "ability to comment meaningfully [on the draft the Panel's Second Report] is hampered by Defendant's refusal to provide any of the documents" Plaintiffs previously requested. During discussions regarding the Panel's proposal to revise the Compliance Measures, Plaintiffs' Counsel reiterated their concerns that they would be unable to assess the Panel's conclusions regarding the Department's compliance with the revised measures without off-site access to the information reviewed and relied upon by the Panel. Without intending to comment on the merits of the Parties' positions, the Panel is planning to wait until the outstanding discovery disputes are resolved before issuing the revised Compliance Measures.
There is one other significant remaining issue from last year that the Panel believes the Parties still need to resolve. Under the Settlement Agreement, all recommendations implemented during the same six-month period are grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with the "consecutive" twelve-month period, no matter how disparate the recommendations may be. Under this "cross-collateralization," a failure to comply with a recommendation in one area during a twelve-month period means that the twelve-month time period starts over for all recommendations that were implemented in the same six-month period. This is the case regardless of the relationship between the recommendations implemented in the same period. The Panel remains of the view that it is appropriate to organize the compliance buckets by grouping related provisions rather than by grouping unrelated provisions based on when they were implemented. The Panel urges the Parties to adopt a meaningful and achievable framework for determining the Department's compliance under the Settlement Agreement.
Although the Panel has not formally assessed the Department's compliance with each of the provisions of the Action Plan in the Third Reporting Period, the Panel was actively involved in monitoring the Department's efforts to address the provisions of the Action Plan through reviewing force packages, touring the Downtown Jail Complex, interviewing inmates, reviewing the new grievance system, and meetings with the Department's Command staff. This Report sets forth the Panel's conclusions regarding the status of the Department's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan in the seven areas discussed below. It is anticipated that the Panel will begin to formally and quantitatively monitor the Department's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan in the next reporting period.
As has been the case since the beginning of the Initial Reporting Period, the County cooperated completely with the Panel during the Third Reporting Period. The Department and County Counsel facilitated our visits and inmate interviews, answered our questions, responded to our requests for documents and information, provided status reports regarding the implementation of the grievance policies and the Early Warning System, and engaged in constructive conversations with us about our findings regarding the use of force incidents we reviewed. We appreciate their responsiveness, transparency, professionalism, and courtesy in handling our monitoring requests. Plaintiffs' counsel also has been fully cooperative with the Panel by identifying inmates for the Panel to interview and discussing the issues relating to the Panel's monitoring of the Department's compliance with the Action Plan.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:4106
ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1. Leadership, Administration and Management
The four recommendations in Sections 1.1 through 1.4 of the Action Plan require that Custody Operations be headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility, the Sheriff be engaged personally in the management of the jails, the Department's managers be held accountable for any failures to address force problems in the jails, and the Department regularly report to the Board of Supervisors on the use of force in the jails and its compliance with the Action Plan.
The Department has provided policies regarding the responsibilities of the Sheriff, the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operation, and the command staff, and it has described reporting practices to implement each of these provisions, effective December 1, 2015. Custody Operations has been headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility since well before December 1, 2015. It is currently under the direction of Kelly Harrington, the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations.
In June 2017, the Panel met with Sheriff Jim McDonnell and reviewed his oversight of the jail facilities and the Panel's findings and observations. The Department has provided the Panel with a log of the Sheriff's meetings with Assistant Sheriff Harrington over the period January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017, to review use of force data and trends, training of Department personnel, the Panel's observations, the Board of Supervisors' inquiries, the Department's tracking and monitoring systems, and inmate deaths.
The Department has implemented revised CDM 2-01/030.00 to address the requirements of §1.3 of the Action Plan that require Unit Commanders to be "held accountable should they fail to address use of force problems" in their jail facilities. Consistent with the use of force statistics the Department has provided to the Panel, the Department reports that "none of the facilities had a substantial increase of 25% in overall force incidents, nor did any facility have a substantial increase in Category 3 force incidents" in the fourth quarter of 2017.
The Department reports that the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations reported on the Department's use of force in the jails to the Board of Supervisors on August 15, 2017, and anticipates the next report to the Board "will occur in the upcoming months."
There are a number of other provisions in the Action Plan that relate to the responsibilities of management in Custody Operations. Sections 10.1 and 10.2 require senior managers to periodically tour the jails and the Department to document visits by managers (above the rank of Sergeants) in electronic records or visitor logs. Sections 18.1 and 18.2 require the Department to (1) maintain Custody-wide rotations policies and (2) audit each unit’s compliance with its rotations policies. Section 21.1 requires that the Department’s policies "provide that the Department will not transfer or assign a staff member to Custody as a sanction
5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:4107
for problem employees." The Panel has certified that the Department adopted policies to implement these additional management recommendations.
The Department reports that in the fourth quarter of 2017, "Senior Manager's completed 75 tours [of the Downtown Jail Complex]" and "the Department did not transfer any Department members to Custody as a sanction for misconduct or a policy violation," but the Panel has not independently verified the Department's reported results.
2. Use of Force Policies and Practices
Section 2.1 in the Action Plan requires the Department to "have a separate, revised, freestanding, and logically organized Custody Force Manual for Custody Operations[.]" On October 16, 2015, the Department provided the Panel with a Custody Operations Force Manual with separate sections on Use of Force Policy, Use of Force with Special Populations, Restraints, Escorting, Chemical Agents, Reporting, Review, Special Weapons, and Deputy-Involved Shootings.
The recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the Department use of force in Custody Operations are summarized as follows:
 Section 2.2 through 2.13 require the Department to adopt a comprehensive set of new use of force policies for Custody Operations.
 Sections 4.1 through 4.5 require the Department to adopt specific use of force policies for dealing with mentally ill prisoners.
 Sections 9.2 through 9.3 require the Department to adopt specific policies for escorting inmates after force incidents and intervening to protect inmates as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so.
 Section 17.5 requires the Department to adopt policies for minimizing the risk of an inmate's medical distress during and after a force incident.
 Sections 20.1 through 20.3 require the Department to define Reactive Force and Planned Force and adopt use of force policies for Planned Force (such as cell extractions).
The Panel reviewed multiple drafts of the Department's policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and certified that the Department had implemented these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
During the Third Reporting Period, the Panel undertook a number of efforts to monitor the Department's use of force in the Downtown Jail Complex. The Panel visited the jails on multiple occasions, and interviewed inmates identified by Plaintiffs as having knowledge of, or complaints about, excessive use of force by Deputy Sheriffs and Custody Assistants. The Panel reviewed force packages regarding specific incidents identified by these inmates, which included reviewing video footage of these incidents, but the Panel did not find any instances of excessive
6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:4108
force by Department personnel in these incidents. The Panel also talked informally with many other inmates about, among other things, the use of force in the jails by Department personnel. As in the past, the Panel did not hear complaints in these informal discussions about excessive use of force by Department personnel. These inmates acknowledged that Department personnel did not use force to retaliate against or punish inmates, although some inmates complained that Department personnel used other means (such as discipline) to retaliate against inmates. Some of the inmates interviewed thought that instances of retaliation that did not involve force were becoming more prevalent because the widespread presence of cameras largely precluded Department personnel from using force to retaliate against inmates. The Panel is concerned that these comments may reflect a change in the culture in the Downtown Jail Complex and in the attitude of Department personnel towards the inmate populations.
In the Third Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed 75 completed force packages of incidents that occurred in 2016 and the first six months of 2017. There was one case about which the Panel expressed concerns to Department Commanders that the force used by Department personnel may have been excessive. As this was the only one of the cases reviewed by the Panel in which the force incident was not captured on one of the closed circuit television cameras,7 it is not possible to conclude definitely whether the force was reasonable. In some other cases, the Panel found that the Department's use of force was reasonable, but may not have been necessary if the Department personnel had used communication skills from the DeVRT training, had maintained greater distance from the inmate, or waited the arrival of other personnel. With the one possible exception, the problematic force incidents reviewed by the Panel involved tactical issues rather than excessive or unreasonable force. In the other force packages, the force complied with the provisions applicable to the force that was used and the Panel concluded that the force was reasonable. Some of the force packages were, however, not in compliance with the provision related to checking medical records before using chemical sprays and Tasers, and the force packages did not always report on the training of members on the weapons used as required by the Action Plan.
Among the positive aspects noted by the Panel were that (1) the number of Department members involved in force incidents was limited to those necessary to control the inmates and (2) the sergeants on scene did a good job controlling the number of personnel involved and the extent of the force used. To put the Panel’s findings on Use of Force practices during the Third Reporting Period into perspective, the situation in the Downtown Jails is significantly improved in comparison to the years reviewed by the Citizen Commission on Jail Violence. There are no allegations of multiple Deputies involved in beating inmates or using force to retaliate against inmates, serious Category 3 uses of force are almost non-existent, and inmates continue to comment on the changes in use of force in the Jails from the “old days.” The Panel has observed management working consistently and aggressively to achieve these important reforms.
7 A second force incident involving the same inmate after he had been transported to the medical clinic was captured on the closed circuit cameras. The second use of force was reasonable and consistent with the Department's use of force policies.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:4109
3. Training
Sections 3.1 through 3.4 of the Action Plan require that Department members receive training in use of force policies and in ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect; and that new Department members receive six weeks of Custody specific training in the Academy or the Jail Continuum in Custody Operations. Sections 4.6 through 4.9 require the Department to provide Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training for existing and new personnel in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution and on "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates." Section 12.1 requires that all Custody sergeants receive training in conducting use of force investigations.
The Panel reviewed the Department’s proposed ethics curriculum and training materials, attended several training sessions, and approved the Department’s ethics training required by Section 3.2 in May 2015. On March 4, 2016, the Panel approved the Department's "Deescalation & Verbal Resolution Training" ("DeVRT") materials to implement the recommendations in Sections 4.6 through 4.9.8 The Panel reviewed the Department's proposed curriculum and training materials for its use of force policies, and attended a training session in December 2016. The Panel certified the Department's use of force training complied with Section 3.1 as of December 16, 2016. During the Third Reporting Period, the Panel approved the Department's 16-hour use of force investigation training, and also reviewed and approved the Department's curriculum and training materials for the ethics and conflict resolution refresher training courses, and reviewed the curriculum and training materials for the use of force and use of force investigations refresher training courses.
Since the First Reporting Period beginning on July 1, 2015, new deputies have been required to complete a six-week Custody Operations course that includes training in ethics, professionalism and treating inmates with respect, and new Custody Assistants have received training in these subjects during their nine-week Academy training. The new deputies also have received the approved use of force and conflict resolution training in the Academy and the Jail Continuum and new Custody Assistants have received use of force training and training in "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates."
During the Third Reporting Period, existing deputies continued to receive the approved ethics and conflict resolution training. Beginning in November 2016 and continuing through the Third Reporting Period, they received the training in the Department's new use of force policies that was approved by the Panel. Beginning on February 24, 2017 and continuing through the Third Reporting Period, sergeants in Custody received the approved training in conducting force investigations. The Department reports that it has "trained 1263 deputies in DeVRT[,] which includes training in 'identifying and working with mentally ill inmates,' 1715 deputies and custody assistants in the Custody Use of Force training, 1632 deputies and custody assistants in Ethics, and 119 of 128 sergeants in the Supervisors Use of Force Report Writing and Documentation at the Downtown Jail Complex." The Panel intends to retain auditors to audit
8 For Department members who received the DeVRT training before it was finally approved, the first eight-hour refresher course that is required every other year will include the additional subjects added to the DeVRT training after November 6, 2015.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:4110
and verify the Department's reported training results after the revised Compliance Measures are issued.
Section 3.5 requires Unit Commanders to determine what additional training, counseling or mentoring may be required when a personnel complaint involving the use of force is resolved with a finding that it "Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better." Section 3.6 requires unit commanders to review new Department members within six months of being initially assigned to Custody and again before the end of their probationary period. The Department has adopted policies that implement Sections 3.5 and 3.6, and it reports that "in the Fourth Quarter of 2017, there were no inmates grievances that directly resulted in a finding of 'Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better.'"
4. Reporting and Investigation of Force Incidents
The recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the reporting and investigation of force used by Department personnel in Custody Operations are summarized as follows:
 Section 4.2 requires the Department’s policies to require supervisors investigating the use of force by Department members to interview any mental health professionals who attempted to resolve the incident without force.
 Sections 5.1 through 5.3 require the Department to track use of force investigations, reviews, and evaluations; review evaluations of force incidents; and conduct additional investigation of discrepancies and unexplained tactical decisions.
 Section 8.3 requires that evaluations of investigations of inmate grievances that Department members used force to retaliate against inmates should be reviewed by the Custody Force Review Committee.
 Section 11.1 requires that the Custody Force Rollout Team’s involvement in reviewing force incidents not delay the Department’s investigation of the force incidents.
 Sections 12.2 through 12.5 require the Department to adopt policies and practices regarding the interviewing of suspects and inmate witnesses in connection with force incidents, the supervisors who conduct the investigations, and the order and format of the force packages.
 Sections 13.1 and 13.2 require the documentation of reasons and reports to the Office of Inspector General whenever the Department does not terminate a member who has been found to have been dishonest, used excessive force, or violated the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”).
 Section 14.1 and 14.2 require (1) an additional review of referrals of an inmate for criminal prosecution arising from an incident involving the use of force by a Department member and (2) timely referrals to the District Attorney of "officer misconduct that may amount to criminal violations."
9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:4111
 Sections 15.1 through 15.7 require the Department to have specific policies and procedures regarding the reporting of force by Department members and the review of force reports by Watch Commanders/Supervising Lieutenants and Unit Commanders.
 Sections 16.1 through 16.3 require the Department to have medical assessments of inmates and Department members involved in force incidents.
The Panel reviewed drafts of the Department's policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and certified that the Department had adopted policies to implement these recommendations effective December 1, 2015.
As noted above, in the Third Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed 75 completed force packages of incidents that occurred in 2016 and the first six months of 2017. The Panel found that Department members' reports of the force they used or witnessed reflected their individual perceptions, they reported the force by other members, and the reports were consistent with the videotapes of the incidents from the Closed Circuit Television cameras located throughout the common areas in the jails. The Panel noted, however, the members often failed to describe injuries suffered by the inmate as required by the Action Plan, and the Panel was not able to determine whether the members were separated before they submitted their written reports, as also required by the Plan. With one exception, every incident was depicted on video (and usually by more than one camera), although there were a few instances in which it was difficult to see exactly what happened because of the camera angles or the distance between the camera and the incident. In addition, because the CCTV cameras do not have sound, the videos cannot always establish what precipitated the incident.
The Panel also found that investigators adhered to policies for the investigation of force incidents, which require inmate witnesses to be interviewed away from other inmates and suspects to be interviewed away from the members who used the force, although the interviews of witnesses and suspects were often somewhat superficial. The investigators tended to focus on the suspects' injuries, which is certainly of paramount concern, and gave short-shrift to the suspects' version of the incident. This may be, in part, because of the availability of video evidence, which in most cases clearly shows what happened and usually corroborated the force reported by Department members. In addition, the investigations in late 2016 and early 2017 were conducted by sergeants who had not taken the new use of force investigations training approved by the Panel and first offered in late February 2017. It may, however, also reflect the possibility of an inherent bias in favor of an organization's own personnel, in this case the Department's personnel involved in the force incident. Although this bias is not unexpected, it is incumbent upon the Department and its investigators to make every effort to conduct fair and impartial investigations for the purpose of determining the facts rather than exonerating Department members.
The Panel has experienced difficulties in determining the Department's compliance with some of the provisions (e.g., separation of deputies, timeliness of reports), which may addressed with the use of a checklist that includes all of the provisions of the Action Plan relating to the
10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:4112
use, reporting, and investigation of force. This will help ensure that investigating sergeants address each of the provisions applicable to each force incident in the force package.
The Panel noted that some of the commanders who reviewed problematic force incidents failed to identify and analyze potential issues with the force used by the Department personnel. Even though the Panel determined that the commanders' conclusions in these cases were not unreasonable, the commanders did not analyze sufficiently the tactics and alternatives to the force, or explain the basis for their conclusions that the force was consistent with Department policy. During a January 2018 monitoring visit, the Panel noted that the reviews by commanders were improved. The Panel certainly benefits from a more in-depth analysis of these incidents by experienced law enforcement command staff.
5. Inmate Grievances
Sections 6.1 through 6.20 require extensive changes in how the Department handles inmate grievances and requests for service. On July 15, 2016 the Department issued a new "Inmate Grievance Manual," which is Volume 8 of the Custody Division Manual, to implement a new grievance system. It was approved by the Panel after extensive discussions with the Department and reviews of multiple drafts of the grievance policies. On December 19, 2016, the Panel certified that the Department had adopted policies and practices to implement the recommendations in this section.
Section 7.1 through 7.3 require the Department to advise inmates of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Meeting available under the Department’s Conflict Resolution Policy; advise inmates of the results of Department investigations of inmate grievances; and ensure adequate avenues for constructive prisoner-staff communications. Section 8.1 requires the Department to prohibit personnel from retaliating against inmates.9 The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies and practices to implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015. These policies are part of the grievance system, and will be monitored by the Panel as part of the new grievance system.
During the Third Reporting Period, the Department began to implement the new grievance system, which is a significant challenge given the volume of inmate grievances and requests. The Panel met with Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator on several occasions to discuss the progress the Department has made in implementing the new system and the reports generated for the Department's managers regarding inmate grievances and requests, grievances against staff, and trends at the different facilities. The Inmate Grievance Coordinator described the Department's plans for the use of iPADs to facilitate the handling of inmate grievances and requests,10 and he reviewed the reports generated for the Department's managers. The Panel also
9 Section 8.2 requires the Department to combine polices pertaining to "Complaints of Retaliation" into one section in the Custody Division Manual. On July 15, 2016, the Department adopted a revised policy in CDM §8-03/050 (Grievance of Retaliation) as part of the inmate new grievance system.
10 The Department reports that there "are currently 130 iPads through the facilities and the Department anticipates adding more." As noted by the Department, the iPads "provide a
11

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:4113
met with the Inmate Grievance Teams at MCJ and TTCF to assess how the teams are handling and tracking inmate grievances and requests at their facilities to ensure that the Department is responding timely. The Panel believes that the Department is making progress in implementing a new grievance system to facilitate timely responses that appropriately address inmate grievances and requests, although Plaintiffs report that they have identified "new and continuing problems with the inmate grievance system."
The policies adopted by the Department for the new inmate grievance system do not "establish a centralized unit with sworn personnel, custody assistants, and civilian personnel" that would be "co-located" in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility and the Pitchess Detention Center as required by §6.16, although they do provide for some additional centralized oversight. Based upon interviews with the Inmate Grievance Coordinator, meetings with the Inmate Grievance Teams, including interviews by the Monitor in the DOJ case with Inmate Grievance Teams at the other facilities,11 the Panel believes that the decentralized grievance system can effectively and efficiently handle inmate grievances and requests for service, but the Panel is prepared to visit this issue if necessary.
Grievances about and requests for medical series are, upon receipt by the Department, forwarded directly to the County's Medical Department. The Panel decided it would not monitor the appropriateness of the medical response to grievances and requests because the Panel does not have the expertise to judge medical diagnostic or treatment issues. The Panel will, however, monitor the timeliness of response to medical grievances.
Inmate grievances about staff conduct, including staff use of force, are subject to a lengthy internal investigation process that usually exceeds the 15-day response requirement for grievances against staff. This is because of the volume and the time it takes to thoroughly investigate most of these grievances. The Panel has approved a procedure involving notifying the inmates that the grievances would not be answered in 15 days, but were being reviewed.12
6. Use of Restraints
Section 17.1 requires that the Custody Force Manual include "a separate section that sets forth the general principles governing the use of restraints" identified in this recommendation. This Department included such a separate section in the Manual, effective December 1, 2015.
wealth of information to the inmates, including responses to requests for various information[.]" Plaintiffs are concerned, however, about "the limited availability to inmates of IPads because of scarce out of cell time" and "the poor functionality of the IPads caused by the horrific WiFi access in the jails[.]"
11 The Monitor in the DOJ case met with the Inmate Grievance teams at the Century Regional Detention Facility, the North County Correctional Center, and the Pitchess Detention Center and reviewed the logs of outstanding grievances at these facilities.
12 The Department reports that beginning in July 2017, it "began to conduct weekly meetings with each facility" focused on outstanding grievances against staff, and that 96% of the investigations of these grievances received in 2017 had been completed as of January 2018.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 181 Filed 03/22/18 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:4114
Sections 17.2 through 17.4 and 17.6 through 17.10 require the Department to adopt specific policies for the use of restraints in Custody Operations. The Panel certified that the Department adopted policies that implement these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
Some of the 75 force packages reviewed by the Panel during the Third Reporting Period involved force on inmates who were controlled on the ground or placed in restraints, which required the Department to take steps to minimize breathing problems and medical distress. The Panel did not observe any problematic instances in which inmates experienced these problems, but the Panel recognizes that it will need to examine a larger pool of force packages involving incidents in which inmates were subjected to specific security restraints (such as multi-point restraints and Safety Chairs) to be able assess the Department's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan pertaining to the use of restraints. 7. Early Warning System
Sections 19.1 through 19.3 require the Department to develop a formal Early Warning System to identify potentially problematic employees based upon objective criteria. The Panel again met with the Department during the Third Reporting Period to discuss the status of the Early Warning System, and the Department provided the factors considered in evaluating whether a "use of force is potentially problematic," which are among the factors that should be included in a robust Early Warning System. Although "the new platform" was in the testing stages" in the Second Reporting Period, the system was not in use during the Third Reporting Period.
13

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:4183

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2

RICHARD E. DROOYAN (Bar No. 65672) 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

3 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025

4

Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

5 Monitor and on behalf of Monitors
6 Jeffrey Schwartz and Robert Houston

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 ALEX ROSAS, et al.

CV No. 12-00428 DDP

13

Plaintiffs,

14

15

v.

16

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF LEROY BACA, in his Official

17 Capacity,

18

Defendant.

PANEL’S FOURTH REPORT

19

20 21 `

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PANEL’S FOURTH REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:4184

1

Pursuant to the Section V of the Settlement Agreement And Release of

2 Claims, the Monitor appointed by this Court, Jeffrey Schwartz, Robert Houston, and

3 Richard Drooyan (collectively the “Panel”) hereby submits the attached Panel’s

4 Fourth Report “evaluating Defendant’s Compliance with Action Plan” prepared by

5 the Panel and approved by the Court for the nine-month period from January 1,

6 2018, to September 30, 2018. This Report takes into consideration the comments

7 from the parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. The Panel is

8 available to answer any questions the Court may have regarding my Report at such

9 times as are convenient for the Court and the parties.

10

11 DATED: November 15, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

12

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

13

RICHARD E. DROOYAN

14

15

16

By: /s/ Richard E. Drooyan Richard E. Drooyan

17

Monitor and on behalf of Monitors Jeffrey

18

Schwartz and Robert Houston

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-
PANEL’S FOURTH REPORT

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:4185
PANEL’S FOURTH REPORT
The Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") between the Parties in Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca, Case No. CV 12-00248-DPP (the "Rosas" case) provides that the Court-appointed Monitors (the "Panel") will "prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan [developed by the Panel] ('Reports') at intervals the Panel shall determine." This Report sets forth the Panel's assessment of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan during the period from January 1, 2018, through September 30, 2018 (the "Fourth Reporting Period"),1 and it is created for the purposes of the settlement of the Rosas case. It takes into consideration comments received from the Parties regarding the draft sent to them on October 16, 2018, in accordance with Paragraph V of the Settlement Agreement.2
In May 2014, the Parties retained the Panel "to develop a corrective action plan ('Action Plan') designed to ensure that [inmates] are not subject to excessive force in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles" (the "Downtown Jail Complex").3 Pursuant to Paragraph III of the Settlement Agreement, the Panel developed a Plan that was submitted to the Parties and the Court in October 2014.4 The Plan sets forth provisions in twenty-one areas that the Los Angeles County Sheriff is required to implement in the Downtown Jail Complex. The Plan was approved by the Court on April 7, 2016. Under Paragraph VIII of the Settlement Agreement, "[w]hen the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant's compliance with respect to that recommendation ('Compliance Period')."
With the introduction of the Employee Review System ("ERS") on August 1, 2018, to implement Sections 19.1 through 19.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the Sheriff has implemented 105 of the Panel's recommendations in the Downtown Jail Complex.5 The remaining two recommendations, Section 4.10 (expansion of conflict resolution training) and Section 9.1 (security checks), have been superseded by the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in United States v. County of Los Angeles, et al., CV No. 15-05903 (JEMx).
The Panel visited the Downtown Jail Complex on January 16 and 17, 2018, April 9 and 10, 2018, and July 9 and 10, 2018. The Panel spoke informally with inmates while touring the
1 It is anticipated that in the future the Panel will report to the Court semi-annually on or before December 1 (for the second and third quarters) and on or before June 1 (for the fourth and first quarters).
2 Plaintiffs' Response to Monitors' Draft Report ("Plaintiffs' Response") was received on October 29, 2018. Defendant's Response to Monitor's Fourth Draft Report was received on November 5, 2018.
3 The jails in the Downtown Jail Complex are Men's Central Jail, the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, and the Inmate Reception Center.
4 In developing the plan, the Panel used the term "Implementation Plan" rather than "Action Plan." This report uses the terms "Action Plan" or "Plan" to refer to the Panel's plan.
5 The Sheriff implemented the ERS in the rest of the jail facilities as of November 1, 2018.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4186
jails and also interviewed inmates identified by Plaintiffs outside the presence of Department personnel. The Panel debriefed the Custody leadership on the Panel's observations of conditions in the jails, and the issues raised by inmates during the interviews. The Panel also reviewed force packages and grievances pertaining to incidents involving the inmates who were interviewed to determine if any of the incidents involved problematic force or misconduct by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the "Department") personnel.
On April 10, 2018, the Panel met with Sheriff Jim McDonnell to discuss his oversight of the Department's jail operations; the Department's compliance with the Action Plan; the Panel's observations concerning conditions in the Downtown Jail Complex; the nature and extent of the force used by Department personnel in the jails; and the Panel's recommendation that the Department expand its use of direct supervision in housing units as an inmate management tool. The Panel also had multiple meetings with the Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator and met with the Inmate Grievance Teams at Men's Central Jail ("MCJ") and the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") to review the Department's implementation of its new grievance policies and procedures.
On May 10, 2018, the Panel adopted a Revised Monitoring Plan and Compliance Measures (the "Revised Compliance Measures"), effective April 1, 2018, that is organized around conceptually related topics. Under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Panel assesses the Department's compliance with the provisions relating to the use, reporting, and investigation of force by selecting and reviewing 25 force packages each quarter. Beginning with the Second Quarter of 2018, the Panel has qualitatively assessed the use, reporting and investigation of force by Department members in each force package based upon the applicable provisions in the Action Plan (the "vertical" approach) and then determined compliance with the Plan based upon quantitative thresholds. The Panel also has qualitatively assessed the Department's compliance with each of the provisions of the Plan relating to the use, reporting, and investigation of force across all of the force incidents reviewed by the Panel (the "horizontal" approach).
Under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Department provides the Panel with selfassessments of its compliance with the non-force related provisions in the Action Plan,6 some of which (relating primarily to training) are subject to verification by auditors retained by the Panel.7 The Plaintiffs have expressed a concern that "it is not clear that the Monitors may rely on a self-assessment alone as to determine compliance with any Action Plan provision. To do so appears at odds with the Monitors' duties, as spelled out in the Action Plan[.]" Plaintiffs' Response, p. 2. The Panel's findings pertaining to the non-force related provisions are not, however, "based only on the LASD's reporting," Id. Under the Revised Compliance Measures,
6 The Department submitted its Self-Assessment Status Report on September 17, 2018, and its augmented Self-Assessment Status Report on October 1, 2018.
7 Plaintiffs correctly note that the Department "may only reach compliance after the Monitors verify the training requirements," but object to the Panel including "all of these provisions as in compliance in Appendix A to the Draft Fourth Report." Plaintiffs' Response, pp. 2-3. The Panel has added a note to Appendix A to this Final Fourth Report, to indicate which compliance findings are subject to verification by the Panel's auditors and to the Department's continuing compliance with the requirements for refresher training.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:4187
the Panel has "the right to select the records that must be reviewed to determine the Department's compliance with the Action Plan [and] to request and review additional records and categories of records as necessary to assess the Department's Compliance with specific provisions of the Plan[.]" During the Fourth Reporting Period, the Panel randomly selected and reviewed records posted by the Department to verify the Department's self-assessments of its compliance with various provisions.
Pursuant to the Panel's request, the Department developed a "Use of Force Packet Review" checklist to ensure that investigating Sergeants address all applicable provisions of the Action Plan and to facilitate the Panel's review of force packages under the Revised Compliance Measures. During the Fourth Reporting Period, the checklist was used primarily by the Department's Custody Compliance and Sustainability Bureau ("CCSB") to review force packages that were sent to the Panel. Because the checklist was used as an "after-the-fact" review of force packages rather than as a tool for Sergeants conducting investigations, neither CCSB nor the Panel were able to determine if the Department was in compliance with certain provisions of the Plan (e.g., training on weapons, separation of deputies before writing reports, timeliness of reports) in many cases because, as noted by Plaintiffs, "the force packages and investigative packages did not have sufficient information." Plaintiffs' Response, p. 3.
On October 29, 2018, the Department issued an Informational Bulletin to Sergeants "tasked with the investigation of a force incident," stating that the "Rosas Use of Force Packet Review is a mandatory component of the Department's Supervisor's Report on Use of Force (SHR-438P)." The Panel believes that the use of the checklist by Sergeants who are conducting force investigations will facilitate the Panel's review of the force packages and improve the Department's compliance with the Action Plan.
During the Fourth Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed 43 completed force packages that were selected by the Panel from a comprehensive list of force incidents compiled by the Department. The packages were selected without input from the Department. After reviewing the completed force packages, the Panel met with Custody Commanders on two occasions to discuss force incidents that were of concern to the Panel. The reporting of the force, the supervisors' investigations, and the Commanders' reviews were also discussed in these meetings.
One of the problems encountered by the Panel in reviewing force packages has been the delay between the occurrence of the force incidents and the completion of the investigations, which was often over nine months. In order to reduce the delay, the Department decided to focus its investigative resources on force incidents occurring after January 1, 2017. In addition, the Department developed a plan for expediting the investigation of "Non-Categorical Incidents" involving minimal force that was captured on video by cameras in the jail facilities. The Department adopted the plan after it was reviewed and approved by the Panel. The focus on the 2017 incidents and the expedited handling of the Non-Categorical Incidents resulted in shortening the lag time in the Third Reporting Period through December 31, 2017, but the Panel noted an increase in the lag time in the first sixth months of the Fourth Reporting Period. As a result, for the Third Quarter of 2018, the Panel requested both pending and completed force packages, with the expectation that the Department would expedite the completion of the pending force packages for review by the Panel during the Fourth Reporting Period.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:4188
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of some of these investigations and the enhanced level of review of these investigations by Commanders, the Department was not able to complete all of the pending investigations requested by the Panel before the end of the Fourth Reporting Period. As a result, the Panel only reviewed 20 of the 25 designated force incidents in the Third Quarter of 2018 after having reviewed 23 of the 25 designated force incidents in the Second Quarter of 2018.
There is one significant remaining issue that the Panel believes the Parties should address. Under the Settlement Agreement, all recommendations implemented during the same six-month period are grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with the "consecutive" twelve-month period under the Action Plan, no matter how disparate the recommendations may be. The Panel urges the Parties to adopt a meaningful and achievable framework for determining the Department's compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.
As has been the case since the beginning of the Initial Reporting Period, the County cooperated fully with the Panel during the Fourth Reporting Period. The Department and County Counsel facilitated our visits and inmate interviews, answered our questions, responded to our requests for documents and information, provided status reports regarding the implementation of the grievance policies and the ERS, and engaged in constructive conversations about our findings regarding the use of force incidents we reviewed. We appreciate their responsiveness, transparency, professionalism, and courtesy in handling our monitoring requests. Plaintiffs' counsel also has been fully cooperative with the Panel by identifying inmates for the Panel to interview and discussing the issues relating to the Panel's monitoring of the Department's compliance with the Action Plan.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:4189
ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
Most of the Panel's work is centered on determining the Department’s compliance with over 100 specific requirements of the Settlement Agreement. These individual provisions do not, however, exist in a vacuum; rather, they are embedded in the culture and operation of Los Angeles County Jails. After more than four years touring the Jails, interviewing staff and inmates, meeting with the Sheriff and the Custody Command staff, reviewing and approving training materials, and assessing force packages, the Panel is pleased to note two important changes in Custody Operations that should not be overlooked in reviewing the Panel's report on the Department's implementation of the specific provisions of the Action Plan as required by the Settlement Agreement.
First, the staff culture in the Jails has changed. What had been a culture based upon enforcement now emphasizes communication, de-escalation, and the Department's responsibility for the welfare of the inmates in its custody. Changing an organization's culture is usually a difficult and slow process. This change has happened more quickly than might have been predicted, and it is the men and women of the Department who deserve credit for this change under the leadership of the Sheriff and Custody Operations.
The second important change is that Department members do not appear to be using force to punish or retaliate against inmates or force that results in severe injuries (such as broken bones that were too often the result of the force that was noted by the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence). That is not to say that all force incidents were in compliance with all of the provisions of the Action Plan, but the Panel did not find situations in which inmates were beaten or where force was used in retaliation or as punishment.
1. Leadership, Administration and Management
The recommendations in Sections 1.1 through 1.4 of the Action Plan require that Custody be headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility, the Sheriff be engaged personally in the management of the jails, the Department's managers be held accountable for any failures to address force problems in the jails, and the Department regularly report to the Board of Supervisors on the use of force in the jails and on its compliance with the Action Plan.
The Department has been in Compliance with Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Action Plan since well before January 1, 2017.8 Custody has been headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility since mid-2014. It is currently under the direction of Assistant Sheriff Kelly Harrington. In April 2018, the Panel met with the Sheriff and reviewed his oversight of the jail facilities and the Panel's findings and observations. The Department has provided the Panel with a log of the Sheriff's frequent meetings with Assistant Sheriff Harrington
8 Use of the term Compliance in bold is a finding of Compliance as of a certain date, which in some instances are still subject to verification by the Panel's auditors. These findings are set forth on the Appendix attached hereto.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:4190
from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, that include, among other things, the review of use of force data and trends, suicide attempts and rescue force, deployment of chemical agents and personal weapons, facility security concerns, assaults on staff, use of force against mentally ill inmates, and de-escalation techniques.
The Department did not achieve Compliance with Section 1.3 in the Second Quarter of 2018 because it was unable to assess "whether supervisors appropriately addressed supervision of Department members involved in a substantial increase in force incidents[.]" It anticipates that the ERS, which was implemented to establish the Early Warning System required by Section 19, "will now allow the Department to capture the information necessary to audit this report."
The Department is in Compliance with Section 1.4 as of June 12, 2018, when the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations reported on the Department's use of force in the jails and its implementation of the Rosas Settlement Agreement to the Board of Supervisors. It has also provided the Panel with a copy of the transcript of the Department's presentation.
The Department is in Compliance with Sections 10.1 and 10.2 as of June 30, 2018. The Sheriff and Assistant Sheriff visited the jail facilities as required by Section 10.1 as did the Captains, Commanders, and Chiefs. The Department documented these visits, along with the visits by the Watch Commanders, as required by Section 10.2.
Sections 18.1 and 18.2 require the Department to (1) maintain Custody-wide rotations policies and (2) audit each unit’s compliance with its rotations policies. The Department's augmented Self-Assessment reports 100% Compliance with rotation polices in each jail facility as required by Section 18.1. The Department was, however, "unable to assess" Section 18.2 because, "due to a programing error[,] the data obtained for use in the audit of the rotation policy was flawed." Augmented Self-Assessment Report, p. 2
The Department is in Compliance with Section 21.1 as of June 30, 2018. As supported by the posted documentation, the Department reports that "no member was transferred to Custody as a sanction for misconduct or a policy violation."
2. Use of Force Policies and Practices
Section 2.1 of the Action Plan requires the Department to "have a separate, revised, freestanding, and logically organized Custody Force Manual for Custody Operations[.]" On October 16, 2015, the Department provided the Panel with a Custody Operations Force Manual with separate sections on Use of Force Policy, Use of Force with Special Populations, Restraints, Escorting, Chemical Agents, Reporting, Review, Special Weapons, and Deputy-Involved Shootings. The Department maintains a separate, free-standing and logically organized Custody Force Manual that satisfies Section 2.1 and includes specific provisions that satisfy Sections 8.2 (Complaints of Retaliation), 17.2 (Pregnant Inmates), 20.1 (Types of Force), and 20.2 (Reactive Force) of the Action Plan. The Department has been in Compliance with these Sections since the Panel began monitoring the Department's compliance as of January 1, 2017.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:4191
The other recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the Department's use of force in Custody Operations are summarized as follows:
 Sections 2.2 through 2.13 require the Department to adopt a comprehensive set of new use of force policies for Custody Operations.
 Sections 4.1 through 4.5 require the Department to adopt specific use of force policies for dealing with mentally ill prisoners.
 Sections 9.2 through 9.3 require the Department to adopt specific policies for escorting inmates after force incidents and intervening to protect inmates as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so.
 Section 17.5 requires the Department to adopt policies for minimizing the risk of an inmate's medical distress during and after a force incident.
 Sections 20.1 through 20.3 require the Department to define Reactive Force and Planned Force and adopt use of force policies for Planned Force (such as cell extractions).
The Panel reviewed multiple drafts of the Department's policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and certified that the Department had implemented these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
During the Fourth Reporting Period, the Panel undertook a number of efforts to monitor the Department's use of force in the Downtown Jail Complex. The Panel visited the jails on multiple occasions, and interviewed inmates identified by Plaintiffs as having knowledge of, or complaints about, excessive use of force by Deputy Sheriffs and Custody Assistants. The Panel also had informal discussions with a number of other inmates during these visits. The Panel did not hear complaints about excessive force by Department personnel in these informal discussions. These inmates indicated that Department personnel have not used force to retaliate against, or punish, inmates, and they did not express any concerns about the force used by Department personnel.9
The Panel reviewed 23 completed force packages to assess the Department's Compliance with the use of force provisions in the Action Plan under the Revised Compliance Measures in the Second Quarter of 2018. The Department did not satisfy the threshold required to achieve Compliance with the use of force provisions in the Second Quarter of 2018. Recognizing that the cases the Panel reviewed do not constitute a random sample because the Panel focused primarily on more serious Category 2 force incidents when the vast majority of force incidents
9 Although some inmates have in the past expressed the belief that some Department members retaliate against inmates by imposing harsher disciplinary sanctions for founded infractions, the Panel did not hear any such concerns from inmates during a recent site visit in the Fifth Reporting Period.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:4192
are Category 1 incidents or Non-Categorical Incidents,10 the Panel found force incidents in which a Department member punched a recalcitrant inmate in the head or used a Taser against an inmate in restraints when, in the judgment of the Panel, the inmates were not assaultive and there were other reasonable means to control the inmates’ behavior.11 These incidents, which the Panel found to be in violation of Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of the Action Plan, were discussed with Commanders in Custody Operations following the Panel's visits to the Downtown Jail Complex in July 2018.12
The Panel determined that the Department was in compliance with most of the other use of force provisions, except with the provision relating to escorting inmates involved in force incidents (Section 9.2). In addition, the information provided by the Department was often not sufficient for the Panel to determine the Department's compliance with the provision relating to the training on the use of authorized weapons (Section 2.10).
In order to review 25 force packages in real time (that is, with less delay between the incident itself and the Panel’s review of the investigation), in the Third Quarter of 2018 the Panel selected 10 completed force packages and 15 pending investigations of more complex cases with the understanding that the Department would expedite its review of the pending investigations so that the Panel could review the completed force packages during the Fourth Reporting Period. Given the complexity of the cases and the enhanced level of review by Commanders, the Department was not able to complete all 15 of the pending investigations before the end of the quarter so the Panel only reviewed 20 completed force packages during the Third Quarter of 2018.
Of the 20 completed force packages the Panel reviewed, the Panel concluded that 15 were in Compliance with the use of force provisions,13 and that the Department did not reach the 90% threshold for Compliance with the Action Plan. The Panel also concluded that the Department was not in compliance with the following specific provisions of the Action Plan:
10 In 2017, 84.5% of the force incidents in all of the jail facilities were either Category 1 incidents or Non-Categorical Incidents and 15.3% were Category 2 incidents. There were only three Category 3 incidents out of a total of 1901 incidents (one at the Inmate Reception Center, one at MJC, and one at North County Correctional Facility).
11 While acknowledging the Panel's concerns, the Department noted that very few force incidents involve either Tasers or punches to the head. Based upon data provided by the Department, and excluding Non-Categorical Incidents, 1.7% of force incidents in the Downtown Jail Facilities in the Second Quarter of 2018 involved the use of a Taser and less than 6% involved punches by Department personnel.
12 Plaintiff's Response notes "specific examples of non-compliance with the Action Plan in several of the packages that [Class Counsel] has been able to review." Plaintiffs' Response, p. 4. With one exception, these cases involve force incidents in 2016 that were not reviewed by the Panel during the Fourth Reporting Period. With respect to the one case that involved a force incident in 2017, the Panel (and the Department) agrees with the Plaintiffs' conclusions that it violated the Department's cell extraction policies. Id., pp, 4-5.
13 In the case involving the violation of the Department's cell extraction policies the force itself was not unreasonable.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:4193
head strikes (Section 2.6) and calling supervisors to the scene (Section 2.7), and it did not have sufficient information to determine the Department's compliance with the provision pertaining to the use of authorized weapons (Section 2.10).14 The Panel's overarching concern was that Department members sometimes reacted too quickly in a confined environment instead waiting for readily available backup resources and taking more time to plan on how to respond to a recalcitrant inmate.
The Panel reviewed these incidents with Commanders in Custody Operations on the Panel's recent site visit during the Fifth Reporting Period. Although the Commanders did not necessarily agree that the force in these cases violated the Department's use of force polices, they noted that they had ordered corrective action consisting of additional training of Department personnel in several of these cases.
Although the Department was in compliance with other use of force provisions in the 20 force packages reviewed by the Panel, under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Panel is supposed to review 25 force packages to assess the Department's compliance with the use of force provisions. That the Panel was only able to review 20 force packages in the Third Quarter of 2018, precludes the Panel from finding the Department in compliance with these other force provisions.15
In order to review 25 force packages each quarter going forward, it appears that the Panel will have to continue to rely on completed force packages for incidents that occurred up to almost a year earlier. The Panel is concerned, however, that reviewing force packages up to a year in arrears will limit the usefulness of its findings regarding the Department's compliance with its use of force policies. Further, it appears from the most recent force tracker generated by the Department that the Department is getting further behind in completing the investigations of the more serious Category 2 force incidents.
3. Training
Sections 3.1 through 3.4 of the Action Plan require that Department members receive training on use of force policies and on ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect; and that new Department members receive six weeks of Custody specific training in the Academy or the Jail Continuum in Custody Operations. Sections 4.6 through 4.9 require the
14 Plaintiffs note that Class Counsel "has not been able to determine whether" the Department complied with a number of other provisions of the Action Plan because force packages "contain insufficient information to evaluate whether or not the LASD is in compliance with certain Action Plan Provisions." Plaintiffs' Response, p. 2. This may because "Class Counsel has received only videos for less than 20% of the force packages they have received." Id., p. 5. The Panel received videos for all of the 43 force packages reviewed during the Fourth Reporting Period and had sufficient information to evaluate the Department's compliance with almost all of the use of force provisions in the Action Plan.
15 The is also the case for the provisions of the Action Plan relating to the reporting and investigation of force incidents.
9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:4194
Department to provide Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training for existing and new personnel in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution and on "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates." Section 12.1 requires that all Custody Sergeants receive training in conducting use of force investigations.
The Department reports that as of June 30, 2018, 97% of the existing deputies and Custody Assistants in the downtown jails received the one-time eight hour use of force training required by Section 3.1;16 and 95% received the one-time four hour training course in ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect required by Section 3.2. The Department also reports that as of June 30, 2018, 97% of the existing deputies at the downtown jails and the mental health unit at the Century Regional Detention Facility ("CRDF") received the 32 hours of training on Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution Training, including eight hours of identifying and working with mentally ill inmates, required by Sections 4.6 and 4.7; and 98% of the additional existing deputies at CRDF, the North County Correctional Facility ("NCCF"), and the Pitchess Detention Center jails received the eight hours training in identifying and working with mentally ill inmates required by Section 4.7.
The Department reports that since the First Reporting Period beginning on July 1, 2015, new deputies have been required to complete a six-week Custody Operations course that includes training in ethics, professionalism and treating inmates with respect, and new Custody Assistants have received training in these subjects during their nine-week Academy training. The Department also reports that as of June 30, 2018, 95% of the new Deputies and 100% of the new Custody Assistants have received the training required by Section 3.3. The new Deputies also have received the approved use of force and conflict resolution training in the Academy and the Jail Continuum and new Custody Assistants have received use of force training and training in "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates." The Department reports that as of June 30, 2018, 98% of new members have received the training required by Section 4.8 and 100% have received the training required by Section 4.9.
The Department reports that as of June 30, 2018, 90.4% of the Sergeants assigned to Custody as of October 1, 2016,17 have received the 16 hours of training in conducting use of force investigations required by Section 12.1.
The Department's reported training results are subject to verification by the Panel's auditors. If verified by the auditors, the Department will have achieved Compliance with all of the initial training requirements in the Action Plan. In future reporting periods, the Panel will monitor attendance at the mandated refresher courses, which is required to maintain Compliance with the training provisions.
Section 3.5 requires Unit Commanders to determine what additional training, counseling or mentoring may be required when a personnel complaint involving the use of force is resolved
16 The use of force training that was approved by the monitors includes the custody-based use of force scenarios required by Section 3.4.
17 The Department reports that there were no Sergeants promoted to that position after October 1, 2016.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:4195
with a finding that it "Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better." The Department reports that there was one such case, and it was in Compliance with Section 3.5 as of June 30, 2018.
Section 3.6 requires Unit Commanders to review new Department members within six months of being initially assigned to Custody and again before the end of their probationary period. Based upon a random selection of personnel records, the Department reports that 73% of the new Department members were reviewed as required by Section 3.6, which is below the 95% threshold for Compliance.
4. Reporting and Investigation of Force Incidents
As discussed below, many of the recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the reporting and investigation of force used by Department personnel in Custody Operations are also assessed by the Panel through a review of the completed force packages. Other provisions are reported by the Department as follow:
 Section 5.1 requires the Department to track use of force investigations, reviews, and evaluations; review evaluations of force incidents; and conduct additional investigation of discrepancies and unexplained tactical decisions. The Department reports 92% compliance, which is less than the 95% threshold for timely entering force incidents or allegations into the database.
 Section 8.3 requires that evaluations of investigations of inmate grievances that Department members used force to retaliate against inmates should be reviewed by the Custody Force Review Committee. The Department reports that it is "Non-Compliant" with this provision, and it is "working on restructuring [CFRC's] scheduling to meet this provision."
 Section 11.1 requires that the Custody Force Rollout Team’s involvement in reviewing force incidents not delay the Department’s investigation of the force incidents. The Department's augmented Self-Assessment reports that it achieved Compliance with Section 11.1 in the Second Quarter of 2018 in that the Custody Force Rollout Team did not delay the investigation of any of the force incidents "beyond the period permitted by law for imposing discipline."
 Sections 13.1 and 13.2 require the documentation of reasons and reports to the Office of Inspector General whenever the Department does not terminate a member who has been found to have been dishonest, used excessive force, or violated the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). The Department reports that there were no incidents in the Second Quarter of 2018 that were subject to Sections 13.1 and 13.2.
 Sections 14.1 and 14.2 require (1) an additional review of referrals of an inmate for criminal prosecution arising from an incident involving the use of force by a Department member and (2) timely referrals to the District Attorney of "officer misconduct that may amount to criminal violations." The Department reports 100% in Compliance with
11

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:4196
Section 14.1 in the Second Quarter of 2018, and there "were no criminal filings on Department personnel related to force for the 2nd Quarter of 2018."
For the Second Quarter of 2018, the Panel reviewed 23 completed force packages of incidents. The Department did not satisfy the 90% threshold required by the Revised Compliance Measures for the reporting and investigation of force provisions in the Second Quarter of 2018. Department members' own use of force reports were consistent with videotapes of incidents from Closed Circuit Television cameras, but they did not always report force used by other members or describe an inmate's visible injuries. The Panel is cognizant, however, that sometimes Department members involved in a force incident may not be able to observe all of the force used by other members.
Also in the 23 completed force packages, some force reports were not timely or it could not be determined if the reports were timely (Section 15.1), and the Panel could not always determine if the Department members involved in the force incidents were separated before they wrote their reports. (Section 15.6.) The Panel also noted that there were instances in which inmates were not interviewed away from other inmates. (Section 12.2.) Finally, the Panel asked the Commanders to provide additional analyses of these issues in their reviews of the force packages.
For the Third Quarter of 2018, the Panel reviewed 20 completed force packages to assess compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan relating to the reporting and investigation of force incidents. The Panel concluded that 17 (or 85%) were in Compliance with these provisions, which was below the 90% threshold for Compliance. The Panel again concluded that the Department was not in compliance with the provision regarding the location of inmate witness interviews. In addition, the information provided by the Department was often not sufficient for the Panel to determine the Department's compliance with provisions relating to the timeliness of reports, and the separation of Department personnel after a force incident.18 The Panel also noted a pattern whereby the Commanders engaged in more thorough reviews of the tactics leading up to the force incidents than the reasonableness of the actual force used by the members. The Panel acknowledges, however, that Commanders have been responsive to Panel's comments and the Commanders' reviews have been more helpful to the Panel in its more recent reviews of the force incidents.
5. Inmate Grievances
The Action Plan requires extensive changes in how the Department handles inmate grievances and requests for service. On July 15, 2016, the Department issued a new "Inmate Grievance Manual" (Volume 8 of the Custody Division Manual) to implement a new grievance system.
18 The Panel anticipates that many of these issues will be resolved once Sergeants begin using the checklist as intended to address all of the applicable provisions of the Rosas Action Plan.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:4197
The Panel assessed the Department's implementation of the new grievance system as follows:
Sections 6.1 through 6.6 require that separate forms for inmate grievances be reasonably available to inmates and that the forms have specific check boxes. Section 7.1 requires the Department to advise inmates of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Meeting available under the Department’s Conflict Resolution Policy.19 Based upon site visits, the Panel concluded that the forms meeting these requirements of the Action Plan are reasonably available to inmates. Sections 6.4 and 6.5 also require the Department to establish that use of force grievances and retaliation grievances against staff are brought to the attention of Unit Commanders and properly handled. Based upon a review of the relevant grievances in the randomly selected month of April, the Department reports 100% Compliance with these provisions. These results for Section 6.5 are still subject to verification by the Panel.
Sections 6.7 and 6.8 of the Action Plan set forth specific requirements for the determination, handling, and notifications of non-medical emergencies. Based upon the selection and review of the grievances marked "emergency" in the month randomly selected by the Panel, the Department reports 100% Compliance with Section 6.7 and 98% Compliance with Section 6.8.20 The results for Sections 6.7 and 6.8 have been verified by the Panel. Although some of the grievances that the Department determined were non-emergent could be viewed as emergencies, the Department handled the grievances expeditiously as required by the nature of the grievance. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with the provisions.
Section 6.9 requires that emergency grievances be forwarded to the Inmate Grievance Coordinator. Sections 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15 require the Inmate Grievance Coordinator to track the Department's handling of inmate grievances, provide a monthly report to the Unit Commander and senior management in Custody on the status of inmate grievances, and analyze inmate grievances for problematic trends. During the Fourth Reporting Period, the Panel met with the Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator on several occasions to discuss the significant progress the Department has made in implementing the new grievance system and the reports generated for the Department's managers regarding inmate grievances and requests, grievances against staff, and trends at the different facilities. The Department provided documentation showing that the Inmate Grievance Coordinator received the information about emergency grievances required by Section 6.9 and that detailed reports were prepared by the Inmate Grievance Coordinator for managers pursuant to the requirements of Sections 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15. The Department is in Compliance with Sections 6.9, 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15. as of June 30, 2018.
Sections 6.10 and 6.12 require that grievances be collected daily, logged in, and tracked in an inmate grievance database. The Department reports that 84% of the grievances were
19 The Department reports that only one grievance was resolved through the Conflict Resolution Policy in the Second Quarter of 2018.
20 The Department determined that the first 50 grievances marked "emergency" were not actually emergencies. Thus the Department identified five grievances that were actual emergencies to determine that they were handled in accordance with Section 6.7.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:4198
collected timely, which is below the 95% threshold for Compliance with Section 6.10. The Department also provided a spreadsheet showing that 100% of the grievances in the randomly selected months were entered into the database and handled as required by Section 6.12. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with Section 6.12 as of June 30, 2018.
Section 6.11 requires that the Custody Division Manual provide that failing to comply with Department policies requiring proper handling of inmate grievances may be cause for discipline. The Department reports that it "did not complete any investigations for the relevant type of grievances in Second Quarter 2018."
Sections 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, and 7.2 set forth the deadlines for filing use of force and PREA grievances,21 the Department's initial responses, inmates' right to appeal, and the Department's notifications of the results of the investigations. The Department provided reports reflecting that it adhered to these deadlines for all grievances selected pursuant to the applicable Compliance Measures during the Second Quarter of 2018 for Sections 6.17 (use of force),22 6.18 (PREA), 6.19 (initial response), and 6.20 (right to appeal). The Panel agrees that the Department is in Compliance with Sections 6.17, 6.18, and 6.20 as of June 30, 2018, but the Panel believes that more data and analysis is needed to determine whether the Department is in Compliance with Section 6.19. The Department reports that it will expand the universe of grievances it will assess to determine if it is in Compliance with Section 6.19 beginning with the Third Quarter of 2018.
The policies adopted by the Department for the new inmate grievance system do not "establish a centralized unit with a sworn supervisor, custody assistants, and civilian personnel" that is "co-located" in TTCF and the Pitchess Detention Center as required by Section 6.16, although the policies do provide for additional centralized oversight. Based upon interviews with the Inmate Grievance Coordinator, meetings with the Inmate Grievance Teams, including interviews by the Monitor in the DOJ case with Inmate Grievance Teams at the other facilities, the Panel believes that the decentralized grievance system is effectively and efficiently handling inmate grievances and requests for service and, therefore, the Department is in Compliance with this provision.
Section 7.3 requires the Department to "ensure that there are adequate avenues for constructive prisoner-staff communication[.]" The Department provided logs of Town Hall meeting and Prisoner Staff Communications at MCJ and TTCF during the randomly selected month of April. The Panel is of the view that the Department is in Compliance with Section 7.3 as of June 30, 2018.
Section 8.1 prohibits Department personnel from retaliating against inmates. The Department's summaries reflect that the Department is in Compliance with Section 8.1 as of June 30, 2018, in that discipline was imposed for the one founded grievance in the First Quarter
21 Section 6.18 provides that there is no deadline for filing PREA grievances. 22 The Department reports that it accepts all use of force investigations.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:4199
of 2018 and for the two founded grievances in the Second Quarter of 2018.23 The discipline in these cases consisted of lower level Performance Log Entries, which is imposed when the member's conduct is not egregious or malicious, and it is considered to be a training issue.
6. Use of Restraints
Section 17.1 requires that the Custody Force Manual include "a separate section that sets forth the general principles governing the use of restraints" identified in this recommendation. The Department included such a separate section in the Manual, effective December 1, 2015.
Sections 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, and 17.6 through 17.9 (the "Restraint Provisions") of the Action Plan require the Department to provide the Panel "with a list of incidents in which inmates were placed in a Safety Chair, restrained to a fixed object for more than 20 minutes, subjected to security restraints for an extended length of time. . .or subjected to a multi-point restraint in the Downtown Jail Complex[.]" To assess Compliance, the Panel is supposed to "select generally 25 incidents involving Security Restraints" from the list supplied by the Department to assess the Department's compliance with the security restraint provisions.
During the Fourth Reporting Period, the Department generated a list of incidents involving the use of a Safety Chair, but the list did not include the other Security Restraints listed above. The Department reports that it "is currently working to document" the use of the other security restraints, which it anticipates providing to the Panel in the next reporting period.
Section 17.10 provides that medication cannot be used solely for security purposes. The Department provided a log of the Administration of Involuntary Medications in the Second Quarter of 2018, which shows all of the medication was administered pursuant to a Court Order for inmates incompetent to stand trial or in response to a petition for a lack of capacity to refuse medications. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with Section 17.10 as of June 30, 2018.
7. Early Warning System
Sections 19.1 through 19.3 require the Department to develop a formal Early Warning System to identify potentially problematic employees based upon objective criteria. The Panel met with the Department during the Fourth Reporting Period to review and discuss the ERS
23 Although the supporting documents for the grievances against staff show the results of the investigations, they do not show how the grievances were investigated or the basis of the Department's findings or discipline. As a result, the Panel is unable to qualitatively assess the Department's reported conclusions regarding the actions of the employees that were the subject of the inmates' grievances. In the future, the Department should summarize or describe the investigations and the basis for its findings, which can be done for a random sample, depending on the number of these investigations. In addition, the Panel had questions about the Department's responses to inmates stating that the Department was unable to make a determination regarding the inmates' grievances, in cases where the Department had determined that staff performance could have been better or should have been different.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:4200
proposed by the Department to establish the Early Warning System. The Panel approved the ERS in July and it was implemented by the Department on August 1, 2018, as a pilot program in the Downtown Jail Complex. It was implemented in the rest of the jail facilities effective November 1, 2018. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with Section 19.1 in the Downtown Jail Complex as of August 1, 2018. The Department did not report to the Monitors the results of its reviews of the ERS for the required notifications and consultations during last two months of the Fourth Reporting Period.
16

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:4201

APPENDIX

NO. PROVISION

STATUS DATE

Leadership, Administration & Management

1.1

Assistant Sheriff

1.2

Sheriff

1.3

Supervision

1,4

Reports to Board

10.1 Jail Visits

10.2 Documented Visits

18.1 Rotation in Custody

18.2 Documentation of Rotation

21.1 Transfers to Custody

Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

June 12, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018

Use of Force Polices & Practices

2.1

Custody Force Manual

2.2

Force Prevention Principles

2.3

Inmate on Inmate Violence

2.4

Use of Force as Discipline

2.5

Force on Restrained Inmates

2.6

Head Strikes or Kicks

2.7

Supervisors Called to Scene

2.8

Prevent Excessive Force

2.9

Armed Inmates

2.10 Authorized Weapons

2.11 Planned Chemical Spray

2.12 Chemical Spray & Tasers

2.13 Check of Medical Records

4.1

Consult MH professionals

4.3

Spray on MH inmates

4.4

Cooling Off Periods

4.5

Medical or MH Provider

8.2

Complaints of Retaliation

9.2

Escorting of Inmates

17.2 Pregnant Inmates

17.5 Minimize Medical Distress

20.1 Categories of Force

20.2 Reactive Force

20.3 Planned Use of Force

Compliance January 1, 2017
Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017

17

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:4202

Training24

3.1

Use of Force Training

3.2

Ethics, Professionalism

3.3

Custody Training

3.4

Custody-based scenarios

3.5

Add training/mentoring

3.6

Probation Reviews

4.6

Crisis Intervention

4.7

Mentally Ill Inmates

4.8

Mentally Ill Inmates (for new

Department members)

4.9

Crisis Intervention (for new

Department members)

12.1 Force Investigations

Investigation & Reporting of Force

4.2

Mental Health Professionals

5.2

Commanders' Reviews

5.3

Unexplained Discrepancies

12.2 Location of Inmate Interviews

12.3 Suspect Interviews

12.4 Uninvolved Supervisors

12.5 Standard Order & Format

15.1 Timeliness of Reports

15.2 All Department Witnesses

15.3 Force by Other Members

15.4 Description of Injuries

15.5 Clarification after Video

15.6 Separation of Deputies

15.7 Individual Perceptions

16.1 Healthcare Assessment

16.2 Photographs of Injuries

16.3 Medical Report of Injuries

Inmate Grievances

6.1

Separate Grievance Forms

6.2

Available Grievance Forms

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018 Compliance June 30, 2018 Compliance June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018

Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017

24 The Panel's Compliance findings for Sections 3.1 through 3.4, 4.6 through 4.9, and 12.1 are subject to verification by the Panel's auditors.
18

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 195 Filed 11/15/18 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:4203

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 7.2 7.3 8.1
17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10
19.1 19.2 19.3

Emergency Grievances Forms Use of Force Grievances Grievances Against Staff Right to Appeal Form Handling Emergency Grievances Notification of Non-Emergency Grievance Coordinator Review Collection of Grievances Failure to Handle Grievances Tracking Inmate Grievances Grievance Coordinator Tracking Grievance Coordinator Reports Grievance Coordinator Analysis Centralized Grievance Unit Use of Force Deadline PREA Deadline Response to Inmate Grievances Appeals of Grievances Notification of Results Prisoner-staff Communications Anti-retaliation

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

January 1, 2017 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018 Compliance June 30, 2018

Use of Restraints

Restraint Provisions Pregnant Inmates Safety Chair Procedures Safety Checks Multi-point Restraint Procedures Approval of Multi-point Restraints Continued Use of Restraints Supervisor Approval of Restraints Involuntary Medications

Compliance Compliance

January 1, 2017 June 30, 2018

Early Warning System

Development of EWS

Compliance August 1, 2018

Report Review and Notification

Performance Mentoring Programs

19

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:4210

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2

RICHARD E. DROOYAN (Bar No. 65672) 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

3 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025

4

Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

5 Monitor and on behalf of Monitors
6 Jeffrey Schwartz and Robert Houston

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 ALEX ROSAS, et al.

CV No. 12-00428 DDP

13

Plaintiffs,

14

15

v.

16

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF LEROY BACA, in his Official

17 Capacity,

18

Defendant.

PANEL’S FIFTH REPORT

19

20 21 `

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PANEL’S FIFTH REPORT

Case No.CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:4211

1

Pursuant to the Section V of the Settlement Agreement And Release of

2 Claims, the Monitor appointed by this Court, Jeffrey Schwartz, Robert Houston, and

3 Richard Drooyan (collectively the “Panel”) hereby submits the attached Panel’s

4 Fifth Report “evaluating Defendant’s Compliance with Action Plan” prepared by the

5 Panel and approved by the Court for the period from July 1, 2018, through

6 December 30, 2018. This Report takes into consideration the comments from the

7 parties in accordance with Section V of the Agreement. The Panel is available to

8 answer any questions the Court may have regarding my Report at such times as are

9 convenient for the Court and the parties.

10

11 DATED: May 31, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

12

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

13

RICHARD E. DROOYAN

14

15

16

By: /s/ Richard E. Drooyan Richard E. Drooyan

17

Monitor and on behalf of Monitors Jeffrey

18

Schwartz and Robert Houston

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -
PANEL’S FIFTH REPORT

Case No.CV 12-00428 DDP

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:4212
PANEL’S FIFTH REPORT
The Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") between the Parties in Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca, Case No. CV 12-00248-DPP (the "Rosas" case) provides that the Court-appointed Monitors (the "Panel") will "prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan [developed by the Panel] ('Reports') at intervals the Panel shall determine." This Report sets forth the Panel's assessment of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan during the period from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018 (the "Fifth Reporting Period"), and it is created for the purposes of the settlement of the Rosas case. In accordance with Paragraph V of the Settlement Agreement, it takes into consideration comments received from the Parties on May 13, 2019, regarding the draft of the report that was sent to them on April 25, 2019. The Report also includes reference to some events that occurred after the end of the Fifth Reporting Period that the Panel believes have potential impact on Custody Operations and reforms mandated by the Settlement Agreement.
Although the Panel anticipated that it would submit semi-annual reports to the Court on or before June 1 (for the fourth quarter of each year and the first quarter of the following year) and December 1 (for the second and third quarters),1 the Sheriff's Department's (the "Department") most recent Self-Assessment Status Report encompasses the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018.2 In order to align the Panel's reports with the Department's time periods, the Panel has included in this Report its use of force analysis undertaken in the Third Quarter of 2018, which was in the Panel's Fourth Report, as well as its analysis in the Fourth Quarter of 2018. This will allow the Fifth Report and the Panel's future monitoring reports to coincide with the Department's Self-Assessment reports.
In May 2014, the Parties retained the Panel "to develop a corrective action plan ('Action Plan') designed to ensure that [inmates] are not subject to excessive force in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles" (the "Downtown Jail Complex").3 The Implementation Plan developed by the Panel (referred to in the Settlement Agreement as an "Action Plan") sets forth provisions in twenty-one areas that the Los Angeles County Sheriff is required to implement in the Downtown Jail Complex. The Plan was approved by the Court on April 7, 2016. Under Paragraph VIII of the Settlement Agreement, "[w]hen the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant's compliance with respect to that recommendation ('Compliance Period')."
As of November 1, 2018, the Sheriff's Department implemented 104 of the Panel's 106 recommendations. The remaining two recommendations, Section 4.10 (expansion of conflict resolution training) and Section 9.1 (security checks), have been superseded by the Settlement
1 See Panel's Fourth Report, p. 1. 2 The Department's Self-Assessment was submitted on March 15, 2019, and Augmented on March 29, 2019. 3 The jails in the Downtown Jail Complex are Men's Central Jail, the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, and the Inmate Reception Center.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:4213
Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in United States v. County of Los Angeles, et al., CV No. 15-05903 (JEMx) (the "DOJ case").4
The Panel visited the Downtown Jail Complex during the Fifth Reporting Period on July 9 and 10, 2018, and again on November 1 and 2, 2018. As in the past, the Panel spoke informally with inmates and Department personnel while touring the jails. The Panel debriefed the Custody leadership on the Panel's observations of conditions in the jails, and the issues raised by inmates during the interviews.
On November 1, 2018, the Panel met with Sheriff Jim McDonnell to discuss his oversight of the Department's jail operations; the Department's compliance with the Action Plan; the Panel's observations concerning conditions in the Downtown Jail Complex; the nature and extent of the force used by Department personnel in the jails; and the Panel's recommendation that the Department expand its use of direct supervision in housing units as an inmate management tool. On February 22, 2019, during the next reporting period, the Panel met with Sheriff Alex Villanueva to discuss his vision for the Department and the Panel's monitoring activities and observations about his role in ensuring that the reforms instituted by the Department continue and that Department personnel are held accountable for their conduct.
The Panel also had several meetings during the Fifth Reporting Period with the Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator and the Inmate Grievance Teams at Men's Central Jail ("MCJ") and the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") to review the Department's implementation of its new grievance policies and procedures.
On May 10, 2018, the Panel adopted a Revised Monitoring Plan and Compliance Measures (the "Revised Compliance Measures"), effective April 1, 2018, that is organized around conceptually related topics. Under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Panel assesses the Department's compliance with the provisions relating to the use, reporting, and investigation of force by selecting and reviewing 25 force packages each quarter.
Pursuant to the Panel's request, the Department developed a "Use of Force Packet Review" checklist to ensure that investigating Sergeants address all applicable provisions of the Action Plan and to facilitate the Panel's review of force packages under the Revised Compliance Measures. On October 29, 2018, the Department issued an Informational Bulletin to Sergeants "tasked with the investigation of a force incident," stating that "The Rosas Use of Force Packet Review is a mandatory component of the Department's Supervisor's Report on Use of Force (SHR-438P)." The entries on the checklist need to be supported by reports or other documents in the force packages. Because most of the force incidents reviewed by the Panel during the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018 occurred before October 29, 2018, the checklist was used primarily by the Department's Custody Compliance and Sustainability Bureau ("CCSB") to review force packages before they were sent to the Panel during the Fifth Reporting Period.
4 The other recommendations in the Rosas Action Plan have been implemented in the other jail facilities outside of the Downtown Jail Complex pursuant to Paragraph 81 of Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Order of Resolution in the DOJ case.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:4214
During the Fifth Reporting Period, the Panel reviewed 44 completed force packages that were selected by the Panel from a comprehensive list of force incidents compiled by the Department. The packages were selected without input from the Department.5 After reviewing the completed force packages, the Panel met with Custody Commanders after the end of each quarter to discuss the force incidents that were of concern to the Panel. The reporting of the force, the supervisors' investigations, and the Commanders' reviews were also discussed in these meetings. The Panel subsequently met with Class Counsel to review issues they had identified in the 24 force packages reviewed by the Panel in the Fourth Quarter of 2018.6 This Report reflects the input from both the Custody Commanders and Class Counsel.
Under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Department provides the Panel with selfassessments of its compliance with the non-force related provisions in the Action Plan. All of the Department's results for the training required by the Action Plan are subject to verification by auditors retained by the Panel. Others provisions are subject to verification by the Panel, which has "the right to select the records that must be reviewed to determine the Department's compliance with the Action Plan [and] to request and review additional records and categories of records as necessary to assess the Department's Compliance with specific provisions of the Plan[.]" During the Fifth Reporting Period, as reflected below, the Panel randomly selected and reviewed records posted by the Department to verify the Department's self-assessments of its compliance with various provisions.
Plaintiff's May 13, 2019 response to the Panel's draft of this Report ("Plaintiffs' Response") expresses considerable concern about the Class Counsel's lack of access to County records.7 The Panel encourages the County to provide Class Counsel with the documentation they need to evaluate the Panel's reports as the Panel appreciates the input it received from the parties regarding the draft of this Report. Nevertheless, this is an issue for the parties to resolve. The Panel believes that it has sufficient information from the Department's documentation and Self-Assessments; the parties' comments to the draft Report, and the Panel's site visits and interviews to make the compliance and non-compliance findings set forth in the Report in accordance with Article VIII of the Settlement Agreement.
5 Most of the force incidents reviewed by the Panel in the Fifth Reporting Period occurred during the First and Second Quarters of 2018.
6 The Panel also discussed with Class Counsel the issues they identified in the force packages the Panel reviewed in the First Quarter of 2019, which will be reflected in the Panel's next report to the Court.
7 See Plaintiffs' Response, p. 3 (expressing concern about the Panel's reliance on the Department's Self-Assessments because of "Class Counsel's inability to evaluate compliance with numerous Action Plan provisions due to insufficient data"); p. 4 (noting that "deficiencies [in existing information] cannot be cured unless the [Department] substantially decreases the redactions it applies to the document provided to Class Counsel"); p. 5 (noting that the Panel has "access to substantially more data than Class Counsel"); and p. 5 n. 5 ("Stated differently, Class Counsel is not receiving the information which it needs to evaluate the LASD's compliance with the Action Plan").
3

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:4215
As has been the case since the beginning of the Initial Reporting Period, the Department cooperated fully with the Panel during the Fifth Reporting Period. The Department and County Counsel facilitated our visits and inmate interviews, answered our questions, responded to our requests for documents and information, and provided status reports regarding the implementation of the grievance policies and the Early Warning System known as the Employee Review System ("ERS"). They also engaged in constructive conversations with the Panel about our findings regarding the use of force incidents we had reviewed and the Department's continuing efforts to implement the terms of the Rosas Action Plan. We appreciate their responsiveness, transparency, professionalism, and courtesy in handling our monitoring requests. Plaintiffs' counsel also has been fully cooperative with the Panel by identifying inmates for the Panel to interview and facilitating those interviews; reviewing and commenting on the Department's use of force packages; and raising and discussing issues relating to the Panel's monitoring of the Department's compliance with the Action Plan.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:4216
ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
In the Panel's Fourth Report dated December 1, 2018, for the period from January 1, 2018, through September 30, 2018, we noted that the staff culture in the jails had changed and Department members were not using force to punish or retaliate against inmates or force that resulted in severe injuries. During a site visit in November, the Panel did not observe anything that caused any concerns regarding the staff culture or the use of force by Department members. This is consistent with the observations of the new Assistant Sheriff for Custody who took over custody operations on December 3, 2018. In his introductory remarks to the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2019, he stated:
I have been asked to come back from retirement and after running the Custody Division, and I can tell you there's a difference between night and day. I am very familiar with the Rosas decision and the [Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence] C.C.J.V. and walking into the environment and see the changes that have been made now is extremely incredible, and we're going to attempt to sustain [that] process.
He closed by stating, "Although we're not completely there yet, we are going to continue to move forward in that direction." In addition to having an Assistant Sheriff who is committed to implementing the provisions of the Action Plan, the Department needs a strong, experienced Command Staff in Custody with extensive knowledge of the provisions to achieve and maintain Compliance with the Plan for the periods required by the Settlement Agreement.
Notwithstanding this cause for optimism, there are some recent developments that are of concern to the Panel. According to published reports, the Department has reinstated "two deputies fired for misconduct – one accused of assaulting and harassing a woman and lying about it, the other for using unreasonable force during an arrest." (Los Angeles Times, "L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva Reinstates Four More Fired Deputies," April 5, 2019.) The Deputy accused of dishonesty was rehired by the Department, notwithstanding that his termination had been upheld by the Civil Service Commission. Although these Deputies were not members of the Department's Custody Division at the time of the incidents at issue in these cases, the Panel is concerned that the reinstatement of Deputies who have been fired for dishonesty or excessive use of force sends the wrong message to Department personnel about the Department's commitments to the on-going reforms in the jails, and to holding Department personnel accountable for such misconduct in the future.
Of additional concern is a recent Report of the Interim Inspector General, which "observed a sharp increase in the number of administrative investigations that the Department was inactivating." (Office of Inspector General, "Report-Back on LASD Internal Administrative Investigations and Dispositions of Disciplinary Actions," April 11, 2019, p. 2.) At the same time, there was a "marked decrease" in the number of administrative investigations in the first quarter of 2019 as compared to the same time period in prior years. (Id., p. 3, n. 4.) According to the Report, "31 investigations appear to have been inactivated based on [a] new directive or direction, as they do not appear to be in conformance with Department policy," and in 20 of these deactivated investigations, "the employees' alleged conduct appears to have been in
5

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:4217
violation of Department policy." (Id., p. 3.) Some of the problematic dispositions identified by the Inspector General's Report involved Department members in Custody operations who failed to report force, made false statements, improperly used fixed restraints, failed to timely rescue a victim inmate, conducted inadequate safety checks, and improperly imposed discipline. Although these may be isolated cases, the Panel is nevertheless concerned with these instances of apparent misconduct. The Panel agrees with the Plaintiffs' observation in their response to the Panel's report, that the Department "cannot have a policy of zero tolerance for dishonesty or failure to report force if it terminates ongoing investigations of personnel alleged to have engaged in those forms of misconduct." (Plaintiffs' Response, p. 2.)
While the Panel recognizes that the Department historically has deactivated administrative investigations for various reasons, the "sharp increase" in deactivated investigations coupled with the "marked decrease" in the number of these investigations, calls into question the extent to which the Department will hold Deputies accountable for misconduct, including in particular dishonesty and excessive use of force, in the future. Coupled with the reinstatements discussed above, the signal it sends to the Custody staff about the direction of the Department is of concern to the Panel.
The change in the Department's approach to discipline is reflected in its response to the Panel's draft of this Report, which states that:
[i]n determining the specific discipline to be issued in a given case, the Department is taking a holistic approach and addressing systemic shortcomings which impact staff behavior (e.g., where there is a need for additional training, improvements in policies or procedures, or additional staff or other resources, etc.). This change in approach increases flexibility for Division leadership without reducing consistency in enforcing Department policy or firmness in implementing discipline when warranted.
(Defendants' Response, p. 2.)
The Panel understands the need for some "flexibility" with respect to the imposition of discipline to ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct or violations of Department policies. The Panel is concerned, however, about a "holistic approach" that seeks to address "systemic shortcomings" rather than the Department member's conduct and that will inevitably lead to inconsistencies and a lack of "firmness in implementing discipline when warranted." Such an approach will undermine confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary system if some members will be punished while others will receive training or mentoring for similar violations. It will also undermine the effectiveness of the system to deter misconduct if the consequences for misconduct are likely to be training or mentoring in lieu of discipline. In many cases, the combination of discipline and training can provide the most impactful outcome.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:4218
1. Leadership, Administration and Management
The recommendations in Sections 1.1 through 1.4 of the Action Plan require that Custody be headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility, the Sheriff be engaged personally in the management of the jails, the Department's managers be held accountable for any failures to address force problems in the jails, and the Department regularly report to the Board of Supervisors on the use of force in the jails and on its compliance with the Action Plan.
The Department has been in Compliance with Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Action Plan since well before January 1, 2017.8 Custody has been headed by an Assistant Sheriff with no other areas of responsibility since mid-2014. It is was under the direction of Assistant Sheriff Kelly Harrington during most of the Fifth Reporting Period until December 2, 2018, and then for the last month of the reporting period under Assistant Sheriff Robert Olmsted after Sheriff Alex Villanueva took office on December 3, 2018.
On November 1, 2018, the Panel met with then Sheriff Jim McDonnell, and reviewed his oversight of the jail facilities and the Panel's findings and observations. The Department has provided the Panel with a log of the frequent meetings that Sheriff McDonnell and Sheriff Villanueva had with the Assistant Sheriffs for Custody Operations from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, that reviewed use of force data and trends, suicide attempts and rescue force, deployment of chemical agents and personal weapons, facility security concerns, assaults on staff, use of force against mentally ill inmates, and de-escalation techniques.
The Department achieved Compliance with Section 1.3 in the Third Quarter of 2018. There was only one founded disposition for a violation of the Department's use of force policies and there were no significant increases in force incidents generally, or Category 3 incidents specifically, in that quarter, and the number of force incidents was down from the prior quarter in the Downtown Jail Complex. In the Fourth Quarter of 2018 there were no founded dispositions for violations of the Department's use of force policies and one pending investigation. There were no significant increases in force incidents or Category 3 incidents and the number of force incidents was once again down from the prior quarter in each of the facilities.9
8 Use of the term Compliance in bold is a finding of Compliance as of a certain date, which in some instances are still subject to verification by the Panel's auditors. The Panel's findings are set forth on the Appendix attached hereto. For other provisions, the Department has either not achieved Compliance or is no longer in Compliance during this current reporting period. Based upon the Panel's findings, the parties will determine whether the Settlement Agreement is subject to termination pursuant to Section VIII of the agreement. As noted in the Panel's prior reports, the Panel encourages the "Parties to adopt a meaningful and achievable framework to determine the Department's compliance with the Settlement Agreement" in the future.
9 Per agreement with the Monitors, the Department's handling of Deputies who have more than a 25% increase in uses of force will be assessed under Sections 19.2 and 19.3, which covers the Department's Employee Review System.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:4219
Plaintiffs question this finding in light of the Panel's stated concern about "the reluctance of reviewing Commanders to find a [problematic] use of force out of policy [and] instead find that troubling incidents raise performance and training issues." See Plaintiffs' Response, p. 6; and p. 16, infra. The Panel believes that it should assess the Commander reviews of Unit Commander evaluations under Section 5.2, which specifies the Commanders responsible for reviews of individual incidents, rather than under Section 1.3, which is focused on the nature and extent of force incidents in each of the jails, rather than on individual incidents. Based upon the number and types of force incidents in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018, it does not appear that the Department has failed to hold Commanders' accountable for force problems in the jails.
The Department is in Compliance with Section 1.4 as of June 12, 2018, when the Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations reported on the Department's use of force in the jails and its implementation of the Rosas Settlement Agreement to the Board of Supervisors. Because Sheriff Alex Villanueva assumed office on December 3, 2018, the Panel agreed that the presentation to the Board scheduled for December 11, 2018 could be continued to January 2019. The Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations and a Commander in Custody made a presentation to the Board on January 15, 2019. The Department provided the Panel with a copy of the transcript of the Department's presentation on that date, and it is in compliance through January 15, 2019.
The Department is in Compliance with Sections 10.1 and 10.2 as of June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018. The Sheriff and Assistant Sheriff visited the jail facilities as required by Section 10.1, as did the Captains, Commanders, and Chiefs. The Department documented these visits, along with visits by Watch Commanders, as required by Section 10.2. The Panel has reviewed the source documents provided by the Department and verified the results reported by the Panel.
Sections 18.1 and 18.2 require the Department to (1) maintain Custody-wide rotation policies and rotate personnel as required by the policies, and (2) audit each unit’s compliance with its rotation policies. The Department's Augmented Self-Assessment reports 100% Compliance with Section 18.1, and 94% Compliance with Section 18.2 in the Fifth Reporting Period. It appears, however, that the Department may have misconstrued Section 18.1 as being limited to requiring each jail to maintaining a rotation policy. Nevertheless, the Department met the 90% threshold for Compliance because 94% of the Department personnel in the Downtown Jail facilities were rotated in accordance with the units' policies.10 Further it appears that the Department assessed whether each of the facilities was in compliance with its rotation policies and analyzed the circumstances for "non-compliance and the corrective action." The Panel has reviewed the source documents provided by the Department and verified the results reported by the Panel.11
10 The Rotation Polices for each of the Downtown Jail Facilities was updated in January 2019.
11 Although IRC was in compliance with its rotation policies in most instances, the Panel notes that at least five deputies in specialized positions subject to 36-months rotation were in those positions for upwards of 79 to 98 months (that is, from three and a half to five years after the end of the 36 month period).
8

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:4220
The Department's Self-Assessment reports 100% Compliance with Section 21.1 as of June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018. The Panel has reviewed the source documents provided by the Department and verified that no member was transferred or assigned to Custody as a sanction for problematic conduct.
2. Use of Force Policies and Practices
Section 2.1 of the Action Plan requires the Department to "have a separate, revised, freestanding, and logically organized Custody Force Manual for Custody Operations[.]" On October 16, 2015, the Department provided the Panel with a Custody Operations Force Manual with separate sections on Use of Force Policy, Use of Force with Special Populations, Restraints, Escorting, Chemical Agents, Reporting, Review, Special Weapons, and Deputy-Involved Shootings. The Department's Custody Force Manual satisfies Section 2.1 and includes specific provisions that satisfy Sections 8.2 (Complaints of Retaliation), 17.2 (Pregnant Inmates), 20.1 (Types of Force), and 20.2 (Definition of Reactive Force) of the Action Plan. The Department has been in Compliance with these Sections since the Panel began monitoring the Department's compliance as of January 1, 2017.
The other recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the Department's use of force in Custody Operations are summarized as follows:
 Sections 2.2 through 2.13 require the Department to adopt a comprehensive set of new use of force policies for Custody Operations.
 Sections 4.1 through 4.5 require the Department to adopt specific use of force policies for dealing with mentally ill prisoners.
 Sections 9.2 through 9.3 require the Department to adopt specific policies for escorting inmates after force incidents and intervening to protect inmates as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so.
 Section 17.5 requires the Department to adopt policies for minimizing the risk of an inmate's medical distress during and after a force incident.
 Section 20.3 requires the Department to adopt use of force policies for Planned Force (such as cell extractions).
The Panel reviewed multiple drafts of the Department's policies to implement these recommendations, required changes where appropriate, and certified that the Department had implemented these recommendations, effective December 1, 2015.
As noted in the Panel's Fourth Report, the lag time between the occurrence of the force incidents and the completion of the investigations has made it difficult for the Department to produce, and for the Panel to review, recent force incidents. For the Third Quarter of 2018, the Panel requested both pending and completed force packages, with the expectation that the
9

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:4221
Department would expedite the completion of the pending force packages for review by the Panel during the Fourth Reporting Period. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of some of these investigations and the enhanced level of review of these investigations by Commanders, the Department was not able to complete all of the pending investigations requested by the Panel before the end of the Fourth Reporting Period. As a result, the Panel only reviewed 20 of the 25 designated force incidents in the Third Quarter of 2018.
It should be noted that the universe of force incidents selected by the Panel includes a disproportionate number of the more serious Category 2 incidents involving the use of personnel weapons (punches) by Department personnel. According to Use of Force statistics provided by the Department for the calendar year 2018, 82.4% of the force incidents in the Downtown Jail Complex were either Category 1 incidents or Non-Categorical incidents, and 17.4% were Category 2 incidents. Further, many of the Category 2 incidents did not involve significant force, but were nevertheless identified as Category 2 incidents based upon a complaint of pain or a relatively minor head injury such as a cut or bruise. There were also two Category 3 incidents, both of which were at MCJ. Notably, there was a significant reduction in the number of force incidents in the Downtown Jail Facilities in the second half of 2018, where there was an average of 117 force incidents per month, in contrast to the first six months of the year, where there was an average of 144 incidents per month.
As reported in the Panel's Fourth Report, 15 of the 20 completed force packages reviewed by the Panel in the Third Quarter of 2018 were in Compliance with the use of force provisions12 and the Department did not reach the 90% "vertical" threshold for Compliance with the Action Plan. The Panel also concluded that the Department was not in compliance with the following specific provisions of the Action Plan: head strikes (Section 2.6) and calling supervisors to the scene (Section 2.7), and it did not have sufficient information to determine the Department's compliance with the provision pertaining to the use of authorized weapons (Section 2.10). The Panel's overarching concern was that Department members sometimes reacted too quickly in a confined environment instead of waiting for readily available backup resources and taking more time to respond to a recalcitrant inmate. There were incidents where Department members could have taken advantage of "time and distance" to de-escalate the situation and avoid using force altogether or to plan a potentially safer use of force.
In the Fourth Quarter of 2018, the Panel reviewed 24 force incidents, consisting of a combination of investigations that were already completed and pending investigations that were completed during the period. The Panel concluded that 19 of the 24 packages reviewed were in Compliance with the use of force provisions, and that the Department did not reach the 90% "vertical" threshold for Compliance with the Action Plan. The Panel also concluded that the Department was not in compliance with the following provisions of the Action Plan: force prevention principles (Section 2.2), head strikes (Section 2.6) and use of chemical agents and Tasers (Sections 2.10 and 11). It should be noted, however, as pointed out by the Department in its response to the Panel's draft of this Report, force incidents involving head strikes or Tasers made "up less than 1 and 3 percent of the total uses of force" during the second half of 2018.
12 In the case involving the violation of the Department's cell extraction policies the force itself was not unreasonable.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:4222
Further, incidents involving personal weapons (punches) "made up only five percent of total uses of force." (Defendant's Response, p. 3.)
The Panel has an on-going concern about Department members using punches to control resisting inmates, which often occurs when the inmates are on the ground and Department members are trying to handcuff them. Using punches when necessary to defend against assaultive inmates who pose a serious risk of injury to the Department members is, of course, well-within Department policies.
The Panel reviewed the problematic incidents with Custody Commanders during the Panel's site visits. Although the Commanders did not necessarily agree that the force in these cases violated the Department's use of force polices, they noted that they had ordered corrective action consisting of additional training of Department personnel in several of these cases. During the Panel’s meetings with Commanders, the Panel recommended that the Department use ankle restraints when moving high risk inmates to increase safety for staff and other inmates.
Plaintiffs' Response to the draft of this Report expressed concern about the "use of a vertical assessment to determine [the Department's] compliance with the Action Plan and Settlement Agreement." (Plaintiffs' Response, p. 3.)13 Their concern is unfounded. The use of the vertical assessment gives a realistic assessment of the reasonableness of each use of force incident taking into consideration all of the applicable provisions of the Action Plan, and the Department is required to establish that 90% of the force incidents satisfy that vertical assessment. The Panel also undertakes a horizontal assessment of the Department's compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Plan, which is not based upon a percentage threshold. Once the Department meets the 90% threshold for the vertical assessments, the Panel reports on its horizontal assessments of the Department's compliance with each applicable provision. Since the Department did not reach the 90% threshold for the vertical assessment during the Fifth Reporting Period, this Report only discusses the Panel's horizontal assessments of provisions that are of particular concern to the Panel.14 By employing both methods of assessment, the Panel believes that it is holding the Department to a high standard of compliance.
13 Plaintiffs also acknowledge, however, that it is the Panel's "prerogative" to draft the revised Compliance Measures. (Plaintiffs' Letter, p. 2.) Although it would be easier for the Panel to simply provide its subjective assessment of the Department's compliance with each of the provisions in the Action Plan, the Panel believed that it was important to develop Compliance Measures so that the Department would have an understanding of what is required to achieve compliance, and both parties would know how the Panel is determining Compliance.
14 There were some provisions for which the Panel was unable to conduct a horizontal assessment, which is a prerequisite to finding Compliance with the Use of Force Provisions. For example, one problem noted by the Panel was the lack of enough cases involving planned use of force and cell extractions involving mentally ill inmates, which precluded the Panel from conducting horizontal assessments of Sections 4.1 through 4.5 (Use of Force on Mentally Ill Inmates). In future reporting periods, the Panel will select a random sample of such cases from a separate list that the Department has now generated.
11

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:4223
The Department's response to the draft of this Report urged the Panel to take the Department's "thorough investigations, and the variety of counseling, education, training and discipline that often results from them, into consideration in determining the Department's compliance with its Rosas obligations." (Department's Response, p. 4.) While the Panel does take into consideration the quality of the investigations and the discipline imposed, the Panel is concerned that the Department is often reluctant to find violations that should be subject to discipline; the Panel does not view "counseling, education, [and] training" to be "forms of discipline." It may be, as suggested by the Department, that Commanders at all levels will be less reluctant to find misconduct or policy violations going forward if there is greater flexibility in the imposition of discipline. The Panel believes that the imposition of discipline sends a message regarding accountability quite apart from the harshness of the specific penalty.
The statistics are consistent with what the Panel observed during the Fifth Reporting Period. The Panel visited the jails on two occasions, and had discussions with a number of inmates during these visits. Once again, the Panel did not hear complaints from inmates in these formal discussions about excessive force by Department personnel. These inmates indicated that Department personnel have not used force to retaliate against, or punish, inmates, and they often volunteered that they did not encounter the excessive use of force that had been present in the jails years ago.
3. Training
Sections 3.1 through 3.4 of the Action Plan require that Department members receive training on use of force policies and on ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect; and that new Department members receive six weeks of Custody-specific training in the Academy or the Jail Continuum in Custody Operations. Sections 4.6 through 4.9 require the Department to provide Custody-specific, scenario-based, skill development training for existing and new personnel in Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution and in "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates." Section 12.1 requires that Custody Sergeants receive training in conducting use of force investigations.
The Department's training results are subject to audit by the Panel's auditors. All of the Department's reported results for the initial training of existing Deputy Sheriffs and Custody Assistants and for new members in the Jail Operations Continuum or the Academies set forth below have been verified by the Panel's auditors. The auditors verified that the Department's new members had received the required initial training from when it was first offered through the "as of" date reported by the Department for the completion of the initial training required for existing Deputies. Accordingly, the Panel has deemed the Department to be in Compliance "as of" the date reported by the Department for the completion of the initial training required for existing Deputies.
Going forward, the Department is required to provide refresher training annually or every other year in each of the areas required by Sections 3.1 through 3.4 and 4.6 through 4.9 of the Action Plan. The Department's reported results on the initial refresher training have been verified by the auditors so that the Department is still in Compliance with the training provisions
12

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:4224
as set forth below. The Department's reports on future refresher training will also be subject to verification by the Panel's auditors.
The Department previously reported that as of June 30, 2018, 97% of the existing Deputies and Custody Assistants in the Downtown Jail Complex had received the initial eighthour use of force training required by Section 3.1.15 The Department's most recent SelfAssessment reports that 96% of the trained Deputy Sheriffs and Custody Assistants completed the required refresher course.16 The Department is in Compliance with Section 3.1 as of June 30, 2018.
The Department previously reported that as of June 30, 2018, 95% of the existing personnel received the initial four-hour training course in ethics, professionalism, and treating inmates with respect as required by Section 3.2. The Department's most recent Self-Assessment reports that 95% of the trained Deputy Sheriffs and Custody Assistants completed the required refresher course. The Department is in Compliance with Section 3.2 as of June 30, 2018.
The Department previously reported that as of June 30, 2018, 97% of the existing Deputies at the Downtown Jail Complex and the mental health unit at the Century Regional Detention Facility ("CRDF") received the 32 hours of training on Crisis Intervention and Conflict Resolution Training, including the eight hours of identifying and working with mentally ill inmates, required by Sections 4.6 and 4.7; and 98% of the remaining Deputies at CRDF, and all Deputies at the North County Correctional Facility ("NCCF"), and the Pitchess Detention Center ("PDC") jails received the eight hours training in identifying and working with mentally ill inmates required by Section 4.7. The Department's recent Self-Assessments report that 96% of the Deputies in the Downtown Jail Complex and the mental health unit at CRDF and 97% of the remaining Deputies at CRDF and the Deputies at the other facilities received the required refresher training as of December 31, 2018. The Department is in Compliance with Section 4.6 and 4.7 as of June 30, 2018.
The Department has reported since the First Reporting Period that, beginning on July 1, 2015, newly assigned Deputies have been required to complete a six-week Custody Operations course that includes training in use of force and ethics, professionalism and treating inmates with respect, and new Custody Assistants have received training in these subjects during their Academy training. The Department reported that as of June 30, 2018, 95% of the new Deputies and 100% of the new Custody Assistants have received the six weeks of custody training
15 The use of force training that was approved by the Panel includes the custody-based use of force scenarios in Compliance with Section 3.4.
16 The Panel granted the Department extensions for Deputies who received the basic use of force training in 2017 and 2018 for completion of the initial refresher courses. The Panel expects Department personnel to complete future refresher courses before the end of December of the years in which they are required.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:4225
required by Section 3.3.17 The Department is in Compliance with Section 3.3 as of June 30, 2018.18
The Department previously reported that 98% of new Deputies had received the approved conflict resolution training in the Academy and the Jail Continuum, and 100% of newly assigned Custody Assistants had received the conflict resolution (DeVRT) training and training in "identifying and working with mentally ill inmates" required by Sections 4.8 and 4.9 as of June 30, 2018. The Department Self-Assessment reports that 98% of new Deputies and 100% of new Custody Assistants received the training required by Sections 4.8 and 4.9 in the Third Quarter of 2018, and 100% of newly assigned Deputies and Custody Assistants received the required training in the Fourth Quarter of 2018. The Department is in Compliance with Sections 4.8 and 4.9 as of June 30, 2018.
The Department previously reported that as of June 30, 2018, 90.4% of the Sergeants assigned to Custody as of October 1, 2016, had received the 16 hours of training in conducting use of force investigations required by Section 12.1. The Department's Self-Assessment reports that 91% of the existing Sergeants have received the required refresher training and that 97% of the Sergeants newly promoted in Custody in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018 have received the required training.
Section 3.5 requires Unit Commanders to determine "what additional training, counseling or mentoring may be required when a personnel complaint involving the use of force is resolved with a finding that it 'Appears Employee Conduct Could Have Been Better;' direct that the Department member undergo such additional training, counseling, or mentoring; and document the action taken." The Department's Self -Assessment reports that there was one such case in the Second Quarter of 2018, which was in Compliance with Section 3.5; no such cases in the Third Quarter of 2018; and two such cases in the Fourth Quarter of 2018, both of which were in Compliance. The supporting documentation initially provided by the Department, however, only showed the required "additional training" for one of the two cases in the Fourth Quarter of 2018. Subsequently, the Department submitted documentation showing that there was a debriefing after the force incident in the second case.
Focusing on the "may be required" language in Section 3.5, the Department's response to the draft of this Report suggests that it can be satisfied by the usual debriefing that occurs after a force incident. (Defendant's Response, p. 4.) The Panel disagrees with this interpretation; Section 3.5 requires the Unit Commander to determine "what additional training, counseling, or mentoring may be required," direct the member to "undergo such additional training, counseling
17 New Deputies are also required to undergo the refresher training each year or each two years after they have been assigned to a custody facility. The refresher training results for new Deputies are included in the refresher training results for existing Deputies because they are no longer considered to be new Deputies when they are required to undergo the refresher training.
18 The Department's most recent Self-Assessments report that 96% of newly assigned Deputies and 100% of newly assigned Custody Assistants received the required training in use of force and ethics in the Third Quarter of 2018 and 100% of the newly assigned Deputies and Custody Assistants received the required training during the Fourth Quarter of 2018.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:4226
or mentoring," and document it. Section 3.5 requires something more than a debriefing when a member's conduct "Could Have Been Better," and the Department was out of compliance with Section 3.5 as of the end of the Fifth Reporting Period.
Section 3.6 requires Unit Commanders to review new Department members within six months of being initially assigned to Custody and again before the end of their probationary period. Based upon a random selection of personnel records, the Department reports that 89.3% of the new Department members were reviewed as required by Section 3.6 in the second six months of 2018, which is below the 95% threshold for Compliance.
4. Reporting and Investigation of Force Incidents
Many of the recommendations in the Action Plan that pertain to the reporting and investigation of force used by Department personnel in Custody Operations are assessed by the Panel through a review of the completed force packages. Other provisions are reported by the Department as follow:
 Section 5.1 requires the Department to track use of force investigations, reviews, and evaluations; review evaluations of force incidents; and conduct additional investigation of discrepancies and unexplained tactical decisions. The Department reports 92% of the force incidents in the Third Quarter of 2018 were timely entered into the database as required by Section 5.1, and 95% were timely entered in the Fourth Quarter of 2018, which equals the 95% threshold required for Compliance as of the end of the Fourth Quarter. The Panel has reviewed the source documents provided by the Department and verified the results reported by the Department.19
 Section 8.3 requires that investigations of inmate grievances that Department members used force to retaliate against inmates should be evaluated by the Custody Force Review Committee. The Department reports that it did not achieve Compliance with this provision in either the Third or Fourth Quarters of 2018.
 Section 11.1 requires that the Custody Force Rollout Team’s involvement in reviewing force incidents not delay the Department’s investigation of the force incidents. The Compliance Measure requires that "95% of the investigations reviewed by CFRT were not delayed beyond the period permitted by law for imposing discipline. The Department previously reported that that it achieved Compliance with Section 11.1 in the Second Quarter of 2018. Because there were no use of force incidents in which there was a finding of a policy violation or misconduct in either the Third or Fourth Quarters of 2018,
19The Department's Self-Assessment finding for the Fourth Quarter of 2018 is based upon a finding that more than 95% of the incidents were entered into the database "within two hours after the end of the shift." The Panel agreed to this modification to account for force incidents that occur at the end of a shift. The Panel notes that the Department's supporting documents reflect that the vast majority of incidents are entered into the database within or shortly two hours after the incident.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:4227
the predicate for determining compliance with Section 11.1 did not exist in those quarters, and therefore it remains in Compliance with this provision.
 Section 13.1 requires the Department to "have a firm policy of zero tolerance for acts of dishonesty or failure to report uses of force." Section 13.1 and 13.2 require the documentation of reasons and reports to the Office of Inspector General whenever the Department does not terminate a member who has been found to have been dishonest, used excessive force, or violated the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act ("PREA"). The Department reports that there were no incidents in the Third or Fourth Quarters of 2018 that were subject to Sections 13.1 and 13.2, and therefore it remains in Compliance with these provisions.
 Sections 14.1 and 14.2 require (1) an additional review of referrals of inmates for criminal prosecution arising from incidents involving the use of force by Department members and (2) timely referrals to the District Attorney of "officer misconduct that may amount to criminal violations." The Department reports 100% in Compliance with Section 14.1 in the Third Quarter of 2018, and 96% in the Fourth Quarter of 2018. With respect to Section 14.2, there was one timely criminal referral to the District Attorney in the Third Quarter of 2018, and "no criminal filings on Department personnel related to force for the Fourth Quarter of 2018."20 The one case that was referred to the District Attorney in the Third Quarter of 2018 concerned an incident that occurred two years earlier. The incident was under investigation by the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau during that time and was referred well-within the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with Section 14. 2 as of the Third Quarter of 2018.
As noted in the Panel's Fourth Report, the Panel reviewed 20 (rather than the required 25) completed force packages in the Third Quarter of 2018 to assess compliance with the provisions of the Action Plan relating to the reporting and investigation of force incidents. The Panel concluded that 17 out of the 20 (or 85%) were in Compliance with these provisions, which was below the 90% "vertical" threshold for Compliance. The Panel concluded that the Department was not in compliance with the provision regarding the location of inmate witness interviews (Section 12.2). In addition, the information provided by the Department was often not sufficient for the Panel to determine the Department's compliance with provisions relating to the timeliness of reports (Section 15.2), and the separation of Department personnel after a force incident (Section 15.6).
The Panel concluded that 20 of the 24 completed force packages reviewed in the Fourth Quarter of 2018 were in Compliance, which is below the 90% "vertical" threshold for
20 The Panel notes that Section 14.2 is not limited to force incidents. In its response to the draft of this Report, the Department states that its "reporting in this category is limited to referrals to the District Attorney's Office by the Department of alleged misconduct by members of the Custody Division, those referrals are not limited to incidents involving the use of force." (Department's Response, p. 6.) The Panel agrees that 14.2 is limited to members of Custody Division and is not limited to incidents involving the use of force.
16

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 19 of 28 Page ID #:4228
Compliance. The Panel is concerned that reviewing Commanders are reluctant to find a use of force out of policy (and therefore subject to discipline) even when they acknowledge that the force was problematic, and they will instead find that troubling incidents raise performance and training issues. The Panel also notes that the Department did not achieve Compliance with the requirement for the timely completion of force reports (Section 15.2), and the Panel was unable to determine if the Department was in Compliance with the requirement that personnel be separated prior to completing their required reports (Section 15.6).
Plaintiffs' May 13, 2019 response to the draft of this Report states that "Class Counsel has identified several force packages where [Department] employees appear to dishonestly present their uses of force but supervisors who review the report do not appear to address—or punish— such dishonesty." (Plaintiffs' Response, p. 6.) Plaintiffs cite three force incidents in their response. (Id., n. 8). These cases were reviewed by the Panel in the Fourth Quarter of 2018, and the Panel's vertical assessments found that the reporting/investigations of these incidents were not in compliance with the Action Plan, although the Panel did not conclude that the issues of concern involved dishonesty. It should be noted however, that in the Fourth Quarter of 2018 the Panel found only one additional case that was not in compliance with the reporting/investigation provisions. While 20 out of 24 cases (83.6%) in compliance is below the 90% threshold for Compliance, the vast majority of the cases reviewed by the Panel did not have the problems identified by the Plaintiffs.
5. Inmate Grievances
The Action Plan requires extensive changes in how the Department handles inmate grievances and requests for service. On July 15, 2016, the Department issued a new "Inmate Grievance Manual" (Volume 8 of the Custody Division Manual) to implement a new grievance system. The Panel assessed the Department's implementation of the new grievance system as follows:
Sections 6.1 through 6.6 require that separate forms for inmate grievances be reasonably available to inmates and that the forms have specific check boxes. Section 7.1 requires the Department to advise inmates of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Meeting available under the Department’s Conflict Resolution Policy.21 Based upon site visits during the Fifth Reporting Period, the Panel concluded that the forms meeting these requirements of the Action Plan are still reasonably available to inmates, and the Department is in Compliance with those provisions relating to the availability of the required forms.
Sections 6.4 and 6.5 also require the Department to establish that use of force grievances and retaliation grievances against staff are brought to the attention of Unit Commanders within 10 days and properly handled. Based upon a review of the relevant grievances in the randomly
21 Although the grievance forms have the required notification right above the inmate's signature, the Department reports that no grievances were resolved through the Conflict Resolution Policy in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018. The Panel encourages the Department to seek alternative means of communicating the availability of the voluntary Conflict Resolution Policy.
17

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 20 of 28 Page ID #:4229
selected month, the Department reports 100% Compliance with these provisions in the Third Quarter of 2018. The Department also reports that it achieved the 90% threshold for Compliance for Section 6.4 in the Fourth Quarter of 2018, but the Augmented Self-Assessment reports that it only achieved Partial Compliance for Section 6.5 in that quarter because the relevant grievances against staff were not brought timely to the Unit Commander at MCJ.
Sections 6.7 and 6.8 of the Action Plan set forth specific requirements for the determination, handling, and notifications of non-medical emergencies. Based upon the selection and review of the grievances marked "emergency" in the month randomly selected by the Panel, the Department reports 100% Compliance with Sections 6.7 and 6.8 for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018.22 The results for Sections 6.7 and 6.8 have been verified by the Panel. Although some of the grievances that the Department determined were non-emergent could be viewed as more pressing, the Department handled the grievances expeditiously as required by the nature of the grievance. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with these provisions for the period July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Section 6.9 requires that emergency grievances be forwarded to the Inmate Grievance Coordinator. Sections 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15 require the Inmate Grievance Coordinator to track the Department's handling of inmate grievances, provide a monthly report to the Unit Commander and senior management in Custody on the status of inmate grievances, and analyze inmate grievances for problematic trends. The Panel met with the Department's Inmate Grievance Coordinator during both site visits in the Fifth Reporting Period to review the Department's implementation of the new grievance system and the reports generated for the Department's managers regarding inmate grievances and requests, grievances against staff, and trends at the different facilities. The Department provided documentation to the Panel showing that for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018, the Inmate Grievance Coordinator received the information about emergency grievances required by Section 6.9 and prepared detailed reports for managers required by Sections 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15. The Department is in Compliance with Sections 6.9, 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15, as of July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Sections 6.10 and 6.12 require that grievances be collected daily, logged in, and tracked in an inmate grievance database. The Department's Augmented Self-Assessment reports that 94% of the grievances were collected timely in the Third Quarter of 2018 and 85% in the Fourth Quarter of 2018,23 which is below the 95% threshold for Compliance with Section 6.10. The Department reports that 100% of the grievances in the randomly selected months in the Third Quarter of 2018 were entered into the database and handled as required by Section 6.12. The Department also reports that 98% of the grievances were entered and tracked in the database and
22 The Department determined that the first 50 grievances marked "emergency" were not actually emergencies. The Department identified only four grievances in September 2018 that were actual emergencies and determined that they were handled in accordance with Section 6.7.
23 The Department reports that its Fourth Quarter 2018 results "were non-compliant due to 'programming errors' that prevented its scanners from properly recording the time the grievances were collected from the locked grievance boxes."
18

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 21 of 28 Page ID #:4230
100% were reviewed within 24 hours in the Fourth Quarter of 2018. Accordingly, the Department is in Compliance with Section 6.12 as of the Third Quarter 2018.24
Section 6.11 requires that the Custody Division Manual provide that failing to comply with Department policies requiring proper handling of inmate grievances may be cause for discipline. The Department previously reported that it "did not complete any investigations for the relevant type of grievances in Second Quarter 2018." For the Fifth Reporting Period, the Department reports that one such incident was identified, but it was subsequently "determined the grievance did not meet the requirements of 6.11." The Panel notes, however, that the Interim Inspector General's April 11, 2019 report indicates that a supervisor "located over 200 inmate requests/grievances in drawers, some of which were about a year old and had not been addressed."
The Department reports that it "took very seriously [this] incident identified by OIG." The Inmate Grievance Coordinator "was tasked with personally inspecting all of the drawers of each grievance sergeant at every facility via unannounced visits to ensure that the situation described was an isolated incident. Further, the Department began hosting town halls for inmates specifically focused on the grievance process."
The Department is also working to make the "grievance process accessible by inmates electronically. . .without the involvement of custody staff[.]" During a recent site visit, members of the Panel were impressed with a demonstration of the system by an inmate in TTCF. Once implemented throughout the County jails, it will expedite the handling of inmate grievances and requests and "dramatically reduce the involvement of custody staff" in the process. The Inmate Grievance Coordinator's best, although admittedly rough, estimate was that the entire grievance process will be available electronically to inmates in 24 months.
The Department's progress was reflected in comments from inmates in recent site visits. The complaints from inmates heard by the Panel tended to focus on the substance of the response to a grievance rather than a lack of response. This allowed for discussions of the essence of an inmate's concerns rather than a lack of response.
Sections 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, and 7.2 set forth the deadlines for filing use of force and PREA grievances,25 the Department's initial responses, inmates' right to appeal, and the Department's notifications of the results of the investigations. The Department previously provided reports reflecting that it adhered to these deadlines for all grievances selected pursuant
24 The Panel had concerns that the source documents do not always support the Department's findings because the dates stamped on the grievances are not consistent with the "Grievance Reviewed" date in the Department's electronic records. In response, the Department "explained that the collecting sergeants initially review the grievances to determine if immediate action is required. They stamp each grievance with a date and time that reflects both the collection and initial review. The [review] date in the electronic records is, however, the last date the grievance was reviewed." The Department acknowledged the "confusion and has revised its audit tools. . .to better clarify this process."
25 Section 6.18 provides that there is no deadline for filing PREA grievances.
19

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 22 of 28 Page ID #:4231
to the applicable Compliance Measures during the Second Quarter of 2018 for Sections 6.17 (use of force),26 6.18 (PREA), and 6.20 (right to appeal). The Department's Self-Assessment reports that it has adhered to these deadlines for these grievances in both the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018. It also reports that it adhered to the deadlines for advising inmates of adjudications as required by Section 7.2 for the Fourth Quarter of 2018. The documentation provided by the Department supports its reported findings, and the Panel agrees that the Department is in Compliance with Sections 6.17, 6.18, and 6.20 as of July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, and with Section 7.2 as of October 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. The Department's Augmented Self-Assessment reports it was not in Compliance with Section 6.19 because it did not achieve the 90% threshold for responding to grievances that are not against staff within 15 days.
The policies adopted by the Department for the new inmate grievance system do not "establish a centralized unit with a sworn supervisor, custody assistants, and civilian personnel" that is "co-located" in TTCF and PDC as required by Section 6.16. The policies do, however, provide for additional centralized oversight. Based upon interviews with the Inmate Grievance Coordinator, meetings with the Inmate Grievance Teams, including interviews by the Monitor in the DOJ case with Inmate Grievance Teams at the other facilities, the Panel believes that the decentralized grievance system is effectively and efficiently handling inmate grievances and requests for service with quicker resolutions and, therefore, the Department is in Compliance with this provision.
The Panel found the Department in Compliance with Section 6.16 in the draft of its Fourth Report, which was submitted to the parties on October 17, 2018, and filed with the Court on November 15, 2018. Plaintiffs' response to the Panel's draft of the Fourth Report, dated October 29, 2018, did not object to this finding. In their response to the Panel's draft of the Fifth Report, dated May 13, 2019, Plaintiffs have objected to this finding because the "Monitors have overstepped the bounds of their authority" and "must receive the Court's approval" if it wants to "redraft Section 6.16 of the Action Plan." (Plaintiffs' Response, p. 7.) The Panel disagrees with the Plaintiffs' assertion that this constitutes a re-draft; the Department has a centralized unit under the direction of an Inmate Grievance Coordinator and it has Inmate Grievance Teams at each of the Downtown Jail Facilities as well as at CRDF, NCCF and PDC North (for both North and South). The Panel believes that current system is consistent with the intention of the Panel in drafting Section 6.16 as long as it "is effectively and efficiently handling inmate grievances and requests for service."27
Section 7.3 requires the Department to "ensure that there are adequate avenues for constructive prisoner-staff communication[.]" The Department's Self-Assessment reports that the Department was in Compliance with Section 7.3 during both the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018. The Department provided logs of Town Hall meetings at MCJ and TTCF during the
26 The Department previously reported that it accepts all use of force investigations. 27 Panel does not, however, have any objection if the parties want to propose a revision of Section 6.16 as long as it provides for an effective and efficient system. (See Plaintiff's Response, p. 7, n. 10.)
20

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 23 of 28 Page ID #:4232
randomly selected months of September and November. The Panel is of the view that the Department is in Compliance with Section 7.3 as of June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Section 8.1 prohibits Department personnel from retaliating against inmates. The Department previously reported summaries reflect that the Department was in Compliance with Section 8.1 as of March 31, 2018, in that discipline was imposed for the one founded grievance in the First Quarter of 2018 and for the two founded grievances in the Second Quarter of 2018.28 The Department reports that there were no founded violations of the anti-retaliation policy in the Third or Fourth Quarters of 2018. The Department subsequently reported that it "incorrectly identified and reported two events as "Founded" violations of the Anti-Retaliation policy, when in fact there was no such violation." In these cases, several Department members received a Performance Log Entry ("PLE") because their conduct, while not a violation of the policy, "could or should have been better."29
The Plaintiffs have expressed a concern about the enforcement of the Anti-Retaliation now that the Department has reverted back to the 2012 disciplinary guidelines in light of a court decision invalidating subsequent guidelines. (Plaintiff's Letter, p. 2.) The Panel believes, however, that the Department has ample authority to discipline members for violations of the Anti-Retaliation Policy, which are likely to violate other Department and Custody manual provisions as well, even if there is no specific guideline range for retaliating against inmates. The County reports that the Department's Anti-Retaliation Policy has been "in place since February 2012, before the September 2012 guidelines were adopted. Discipline for violations of that policy under the 2012 guidelines are considered under the rubric of 'Performance to Standards' which provides for a discipline range of '[written reprimand] to discharge.'"
6. Use of Restraints
Section 17.1 requires that the Custody Force Manual include "a separate section that sets forth the general principles governing the use of restraints" identified in this recommendation. The Department included such a separate section in the Manual, and is in Compliance with this requirement of Section 17.1, effective December 1, 2015.
Sections 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, and 17.6 through 17.9 (the "Restraint Provisions") of the Action Plan require the Department to provide the Panel "with a list of incidents in which
28 Plaintiffs assert that the Panel should review how the grievances were investigated or the basis of the Department's findings of a violation of the anti-retaliation policy and the PLE. (Plaintiffs' Response, p. 7.) Neither Section 8.1 nor the Compliance Measures require the Department to provide this information. Further, the Panel will be in a position to assess the reasonable of any discipline imposed based upon the Department's finding. 29 The Panel does not consider a PLE to be discipline. A Unit Performance Log signed by a Department Member in the source documents provided by the Department states that the member was "counseled" about the violation and "understood that any further violation may result in disciplinary action."
21

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 24 of 28 Page ID #:4233
inmates were placed in a Safety Chair, restrained to a fixed object for more than 20 minutes, subjected to security restraints for an extended length of time. . .or subjected to a multi-point restraint in the Downtown Jail Complex[.]" Under the Revised Compliance Measures, the Panel is supposed to select and review 25 incidents involving Security Restraints from the Department's list to assess the Department's compliance with the security restraint provisions.
During the Fifth Reporting Period, the Department generated a list of incidents involving the use of a Safety Chair, but the list did not include other Security Restraints used by the Department. On March 28, 2018, the Department submitted a proposed revision to the Department's policy on Fixed Restraints" (CDM 7-03/000.05), which will require that, "no later than twenty (20) minutes after the application of [a] fixed restraint, Department personnel shall initiate documentation of the inmate's monitoring in the Fixed Restraint Log[.]" Once the proposed policy is implemented, the Department should be able to provide the Rosas Monitors with a complete list of incidents involving the use of Security Restraints, from which the Monitors will select 25 incidents to review for compliance with these provisions.
Section 17.10 provides that medication cannot be used solely for security purposes. The Department's Self-Assessment, confirmed by a log of the Administration of Involuntary Medications, reports that there were no instances in which medication was used solely for security purposes in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2018. Accordingly, the Department has been in Compliance with Section 17.10 as of July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
7. Early Warning System
Section 19.1 requires the Department to develop an Early Warning System to identify potentially problematic employees based upon objective criteria. The Panel met with the Department during the Fourth Reporting Period to review and discuss the Department's proposed ERS. The Panel approved the ERS in July 2018, and it was implemented by the Department as a pilot program in the Downtown Jail Complex on August 1, 2018, and in the rest of the jail facilities as of November 1, 2018. The Department is in Compliance with Section 19.1 in the Downtown Jail Complex as of August 1, 2018.
Section 19.2 requires Compliance Lieutenants to review monthly reports generated by the ERS and notify Unit Commanders and the Assistant Sheriff for Custody of the results, and Section 19.3 requires Unit Commanders to determine whether problematic employees should be placed on performance mentoring program. Under the Revised Compliance Measures, Compliance Lieutenants must notify the Unit Commander and Assistant Sheriff for Custody Operations 90% of the time within 10 days after reviewing monthly reports generated by the Early Warning System and 95% of the time within 30 days. For each potentially problematic Department member identified through the Early Warning System, the Unit Commander must consult with the appropriate Chief and document the reasons why any problematic members are not placed on a performance mentoring program 95% of the time.
The Department's Self-Assessment reports that the Department achieved Compliance with Section 19.2 in the Third Quarter of 2018 at all facilities in the Downtown Jail Complex, but did not achieve Compliance in the Fourth Quarter of 2018 at MCJ or the Inmate Reception
22

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 25 of 28 Page ID #:4234
Center ("IRC"). Similarly, the Self-Assessment reports that the Department achieved Compliance with Section 19.3 in the Third Quarter of 2018 at all facilities, but not in the Fourth Quarter of 2018 at MCJ or IRC.
23

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 26 of 28 Page ID #:4235

APPENDIX

NO. PROVISION

STATUS

DATE

Leadership, Administration & Management

1.1 Assistant Sheriff 1.2 Sheriff 1.3 Supervision 1,4 Reports to Board 10.1 Jail Visits 10.2 Documented Visits 18.1 Rotation in Custody 18.2 Documentation of Rotation 21.1 Transfers to Custody

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

January 1, 2017 January 1, 2017 September 30, 2018 June 12, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 December 31, 2018 June 30, 2018

Use of Force Polices & Practices

2.1 Custody Force Manual 2.2 Force Prevention Principles 2.3 Inmate on Inmate Violence 2.4 Use of Force as Discipline 2.5 Force on Restrained Inmates 2.6 Head Strikes or Kicks 2.7 Supervisors Called to Scene 2.8 Prevent Excessive Force 2.9 Armed Inmates 2.10 Authorized Weapons 2.11 Planned Chemical Spray 2.12 Chemical Spray & Tasers 2.13 Check of Medical Records 4.1 Consult MH professionals 4.3 Spray on MH inmates 4.4 Cooling Off Periods 4.5 Medical or MH Provider 8.2 Complaints of Retaliation 9.2 Escorting of Inmates 17.2 Pregnant Inmates 17.5 Minimize Medical Distress 20.1 Categories of Force 20.2 Reactive Force 20.3 Planned Use of Force

Compliance January 1, 2017
Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017 Compliance January 1, 2017

24

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 27 of 28 Page ID #:4236

Training30

3.1 Use of Force Training 3.2 Ethics, Professionalism 3.3 Custody Training 3.4 Custody-based scenarios 3.5 Add training/mentoring 3.6 Probation Reviews 4.6 Crisis Intervention 4.7 Mentally Ill Inmates 4.8 Mentally Ill Inmates (for new
Department members) 4.9 Crisis Intervention (for new
Department members) 12.1 Force Investigations

Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance Compliance Compliance

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

Compliance June 30, 2018

Investigation & Reporting of Force

4.2 Mental Health Professionals

5.1 Tracking of Force Incidents

Compliance December 31, 2018

5.2 Commanders' Reviews

5.3 Unexplained Discrepancies

11.1 CFRT Involvement

Compliance June 30, 2018

12.2 Location of Inmate Interviews

12.3 Suspect Interviews

12.4 Uninvolved Supervisors

12.5 Standard Order & Format

14.1 Review of Criminal Referrals

Compliance July 1. 2018

14.2 Timeliness of Criminal Referrals Compliance July 1, 2018

15.1 Timeliness of Reports

15.2 All Department Witnesses

15.3 Force by Other Members

15.4 Description of Injuries

15.5 Clarification after Video

15.6 Separation of Deputies

15.7 Individual Perceptions

16.1 Healthcare Assessment

16.2 Photographs of Injuries

16.3 Medical Report of Injuries

30 The Department's reported results for Sections 3.1 through 3.4, 4.6 through 4.9, and 12.1 have been verified by the Panel's auditors.
25

Case 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-MRW Document 198 Filed 05/31/19 Page 28 of 28 Page ID #:4237

Inmate Grievances

6.1 Separate Grievance Forms

Compliance January 1, 2017

6.2 Available Grievance Forms

Compliance January 1, 2017

6.3 Emergency Grievances Forms Compliance January 1, 2017

6.4 Use of Force Grievances

Compliance July1, 2018

6.5 Grievances Against Staff

Compliance July1, 2018

6.6 Right to Appeal Form

Compliance January 1, 2017

6.7 Handling Emergency Grievances Compliance July 1, 2018

6.8 Notification of Non-Emergency Compliance July 1, 2018

6.9 Grievance Coordinator Review Compliance July 1, 2018

6.10 Collection of Grievances

6.11 Failure to Handle Grievances

6.12 Tracking Inmate Grievances

6.13 Grievance Coordinator Tracking Compliance July 1, 2018

6.14 Grievance Coordinator Reports Compliance July 1, 2018

6.15 Grievance Coordinator Analysis Compliance July 1, 2018

6.16 Centralized Grievance Unit

Compliance January 1, 2017

6.17 Use of Force Deadline

Compliance July 1, 2018

6.18 PREA Deadline

Compliance July 1, 2018

6.19 Response to Inmate Grievances

6.20 Appeals of Grievances

Compliance July 1, 2018

7.2 Notification of Results

Compliance October 1, 2018

7.3 Prisoner-staff Communications Compliance June 30, 2018

8.1 Anti-retaliation

Use of Restraints

17.1 17.3 17.4 17.6 17.7
17.8 17.9
17.10

Restraint Provisions Safety Chair Procedures Safety Checks Multi-point Restraint Procedures Approval of Multi-point Restraints Continued Use of Restraints Supervisor Approval of Restraints Involuntary Medications

Compliance

July 1, 2018

Early Warning System

19.1 Development of EWS 19.2 Report Review and Notification 19.3 Performance Mentoring
Programs

Compliance

August 1, 2018

26

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 1 of 22
(MRWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−00428−DDP−MRW

Alex Rosas et al v. Leroy Baca et al Assigned to: Judge Dean D. Pregerson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner Related Case: 2:75−cv−04111−DDP Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/18/2012 Date Terminated: 04/21/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Alex Rosas on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated

represented by Donna D Melby Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071−2228 213−683−6000 Fax: 213−627−0705 Email: donnamelby@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric G Balaban ACLU National Prison Project 915 Fifteenth Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Fax: 202−393−4931 Email: ebalaban@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle Michael Jones Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−6000 Fax: 23−627−0705 Email: kylejones@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Eliasberg ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5228 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: peliasberg@aclusocal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J Turanchik Paul Hasting LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−6000 Fax: 213−627−0705 Email: stephenturanchik@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 2 of 22
David Shapiro ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 TERMINATED: 10/09/2012
Elizabeth Christie Mueller Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−228 213−683−6000 Fax: 213−996−3314 Email: beth.mueller@kirkland.com TERMINATED: 01/06/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jade H Leung Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: jleung@manatt.com TERMINATED: 10/08/2014
John S Durrant Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−2228 213−683−6144 Fax: 213−996−3144 Email: johndurrant@paulhastings.com TERMINATED: 05/11/2016
Margaret Winter ACLU National Prison Project 915 Fifteenth Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Fax: 202−393−4931 Email: mwinter@npp−aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Orihuela Federal Public Defenders Office 321 East 2nd Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2644 Fax: 213−894−0081 Email: Marisol_Orihuela@fd.org TERMINATED: 02/25/2013
Nicolas Morgan Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−6000 Fax: 213−627−0705 Email: nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam S Puathasnanon

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 3 of 22

Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−6000 Fax: 213−627−0705 Email: sampuathasnanon@paulhastings.com TERMINATED: 10/31/2017

Plaintiff
Jonathan Goodwin on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated

represented by Donna D Melby (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric G Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2012

Elizabeth Christie Mueller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jade H Leung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2014

John S Durrant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2016

Margaret Winter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/25/2013

Nicolas Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam S Puathasnanon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2017

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 4 of 22

V. Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)
V. Defendant Leroy Baca Sheriff of Los Angeles County Jails, official capacity

represented by Elizabeth J Gibbons Green and Shinee 16055 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1000 Encino, CA 91436 818−986−2440 Fax: 818−786−1503 Email: gsras@socal.rr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amie S Park Los Angeles County Counsel Office 500 West Temple Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−5939 Fax: 213−626−2105 Email: apark@counsel.lacounty.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy D Matz Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Linenberg and Rhow 1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−201−2100 Fax: 310−201−2110 Email: jmatz@birdmarella.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra B Zuiderweg Office of the County Counsel 211 West Temple Street 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−229−3097 Fax: 323−415−3307 Email: azuiderweg@counsel.lacounty.gov TERMINATED: 08/11/2014
Corie M Burton 1837 Midvale Avenue #101 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Email: corie.burton@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/04/2013
Karen C Joynt Office of County Counsel Los Angeles County 500 West Temple Street Room 605 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−6755 Fax: 213−626−2105 Email: kjoynt@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 5 of 22

Defendant Paul Tanaka Undersheriff, Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 04/03/2012
Defendant Cecil Rhambo Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 04/03/2012

Kimberley M Miller Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow 1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−201−2100 Fax: 310−201−2110 Email: kmiller@birdmarella.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: pbeach@lbaclaw.com TERMINATED: 10/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven G Edwards Los Angeles County Counsels Office 500 West Temple Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−5853 Email: sedwards@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiana J Murillo Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles 500 West Temple Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−6755 Fax: 213−680−2165 Email: tmurillo@counsel.lacounty.gov TERMINATED: 09/08/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin W Clark Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: jclark@lbaclaw.com TERMINATED: 10/02/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin W Clark (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 6 of 22

Justin W Clark (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dennis Burns Chief of the Custody Operations Division, Los Angeles Sheriffs Depatment, official capacity TERMINATED: 04/03/2012

represented by Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin W Clark (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012
01/18/2012
01/18/2012
01/18/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION against Defendants Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. Case assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman. (Filing fee $ 350 Paid.), filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas.(et) (mg). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. (et) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (et) (mg). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Related Case(s): CV 75−04111 DDP. (et) (mg). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
4 NOTICE of Pendency of other action or proceeding filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (et) (mg). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
5 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to Margaret Winter for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Your Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application; no filing fee is required. (et) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
6 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to Eric Balaban for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Your Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application; no filing fee is required. (et) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
7 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to David M. Shapiro for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Your Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application; no filing fee is required. (et) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
Notice of Electronic Filing re Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV), Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV), Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV) 5 e−mailed to mwinter@npp−aclu.orig bounced due to bad destination host. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to mwinter@npp−aclu.org. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 7 of 22

01/18/2012
01/19/2012 01/31/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/03/2012 02/06/2012 02/06/2012

DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/19/2012)
Notice of Electronic Filing re Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV), Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV), Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV) 7 e−mailed to dshapiro@npp−aclu.orig bounced due to bad destination host. Attorney is not yet in our CM database. Notice of Electronic Filing forwarded to dshapiro@npp−aclu.org. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/19/2012)
8 STANDING ORDER WITH REGARD TO NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY; IT CONTROLS THIS CASE; Memoranda of Points and Authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed 25 pages; replies shall not exceed 12 pages (see document for further details). (jp) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
9 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV 75−04111 DDP. Case transferred from Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to Judge Dean D. Pregerson for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 12−00428 DDP(SHx).Signed by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (rn) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas, upon Defendant Leroy Baca served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Denise Dougherty, OA3/Authorized to accept Service on Behalf of Leroy Baca in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons returned. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas, upon Defendant Paul Tanaka served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Denise Dougherty, OA3/Authorized to accept Service on Behalf of Paul Tanaka in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons returned. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas, upon Defendant Cecil Rhambo served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Denise Dougherty, OA3/Authorized to accept Service on Behalf of Cecil Rhambo in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons returned. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas, upon Defendant Dennis Burns served on 1/19/2012, answer due 2/9/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Helen Ngo, Chiefs Secretary Authorized to accept Service on Behalf of Dennis Burns in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons returned. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
14 APPLICATION for attorney Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt for Payment of Admission Fee, # 2 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
15 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Dennis Burns answer now due 2/17/2012; Paul Tanaka answer now due 2/17/2012; Cecil Rhambo answer now due 2/17/2012; Leroy Baca answer now due 2/17/2012, filed by Defendants Dennis Burns; Paul Tanaka; Cecil Rhambo; Leroy Baca.(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
16 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka, identifying Alex Rosas, Jonathan Goodwin, Leroy D. Baca, Paul Tanaka, Cecil W. Rhambo, Dennis H. Burns. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 02/06/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 8 of 22

02/08/2012 02/16/2012
02/17/2012 02/27/2012
02/27/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/05/2012 03/19/2012 03/20/2012

17 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 14 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Margaret Winter on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Peter Eliasberg as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
18 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dean D Pregerson. Counsel are referred to the courts website for additional information. It is not necessary to clear motion date with court clerk prior to filing the motion. Court hears motions only on Mondays at 10:00 AM. The Court requires two non−blue backed courtesy copies of only the following manual and electronic filed documents: (1) All noticed motions and related documents; and (2) All ex parte applications and related documents (3) all exhibits and attachments must be separately tabbed. [Refer to the Court's General Order No. 10−07 regarding ECF Courtesy Paper Copies and re location of Chambers Email address]. (lc) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
19 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND FRCP RULE 12 (F) REQUEST TO STRIKE filed by DEFENDANTS Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. Motion set for hearing on 3/19/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A − Part 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Motion set for hearing on 3/26/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Class Cert Motion, # 2 Toni Bair Declaration ISO Plaintiffs' Class Cert Motion, # 3 John Durrant Declaration ISO Plaintiffs' Class Cert, # 4 Peter Eliasberg Declaration ISO Plaintiffs' Class Cert Motion, # 5 Peter Eliasberg Declaration ISO Class Cert Exhibits A to Q, # 6 Peter Eliasberg Declaration ISO Class Cert Exhibits R to GG, # 7 Steve Martin Declaration ISO Plaintiffs' Class Cert Motion, # 8 Tom Parker Declaration ISO Plaintiffs' Class Cert Motion, # 9 Margaret Winter Declaration ISO Class Cert Motion, # 10 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Class Cert Motion)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND FRCP RULE 12 (F) REQUEST TO STRIKE MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND FRCP RULE 12 (F) REQUEST TO STRIKE 19 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration John S. Durrant, # 2 Exhibit "A")(Durrant, John) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
22 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by DEFENDANTS Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
23 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The parties having Stipulated 22 . The 3/26/12 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 20 is continued to 4/23/12 at 10:00 am; Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion is due on or before 3/26/12; Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion is due on or before 4/9/12. (ir) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
24 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND FRCP RULE 12(F) REQUEST TO STRIKE filed by Defendants Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
25 MINUTES: Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and FRCP Rule 12(F) Request to Strike Filed by Defendants Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka 19 held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court hears oral argument and takes the matter under submission. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (jp) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
26 ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Request to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 19 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Tanaka, Rhambo, and Burns are dismissed. All hyperlinks in Plaintiffs' Complaint are stricken. Plaintiffs shall file a complaint in accordance with this order forthwith. (jp) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 9 of 22

03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/26/2012
03/30/2012 04/03/2012
04/03/2012 04/16/2012 04/16/2012
04/18/2012 04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/27/2012

27 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re: MOTION to Certify Class 20 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
28 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMTTED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re: MOTION to Certify Class 20 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
29 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Removal of ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK. filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca. Motion set for hearing on 4/23/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
30 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATES AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOCKET NO. 20) AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMOVE THE ACLU AS COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 29) filed by DEFENDANTS Leroy Baca, Dennis Burns, Cecil Rhambo, Paul Tanaka. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
31 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 30 1. The hearings on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification 20 and Defendants Motion to Remove the ACLU as counsel 29 are continued from April 23, 2012 to May 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.; 2. Plaintiffs Reply on the Motion for Class Certification will be due on April 16, 2012; 3. Plaintiffs Opposition on the Motion to Remove the ACLU as counsel will be due on April 16, 2012; 4. Defendants Reply on the Motion to Remove the ACLU as counsel will be due on April 30, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Leroy Baca; Party Paul Tanaka, Dennis Burns and Cecil Rhambo terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas (lc) (lc). (Entered: 04/04/2012)
33 REPLY Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification MOTION to Certify Class 20 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections to Declarations and Other Evidence Submitted by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Leung, Jade) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
34 Opposition to the Removal of ACLU re: MOTION for Removal of ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK. 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lim Declaration & Exhibit)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
35 APPLICATION for attorney David Shapiro to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Shapiro Pro Hac Vice)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
36 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca. Motion set for hearing on 5/21/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
37 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Corie M Burton counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Corie M. Burton as attorney as counsel of record for Defendant Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, in his official capacity only for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, in his official capacity only (Burton, Corie) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
38 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATES AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOCKET NO. 20); DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REMOVE THE ACLU AS COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 29) AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCKET NO. 36) Re: MOTION to Certify Class 20 , MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 36 , MOTION for Removal

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 10 of 22

05/07/2012 05/07/2012 05/07/2012 05/08/2012 05/09/2012
05/11/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/16/2012 05/17/2012

of ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK. 29 filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
39 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Leroy Baca of Exhibit A to Declaration of Justin W. Clark in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Remove the ACLU as Counsel for Plaintiffs. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
40 REPLY in support of MOTION for Removal of ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK. 29 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Evidentiary Objections)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
41 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 36 filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
42 NOTICE OF LODGING filed EXHIBIT"A" TO DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REMOVE THE ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS re Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 40 (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
43 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 38 The hearings on MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS JONATHAN GOODWIN, ALEX ROSAS 20 and the MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER 29 are continued one week from May14, 2012 to May 21, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs Opposition to the Motion toDismiss the FAC and Defendants Reply on the Motion to Remove the ACLU aredue on May 7, 2012. Defendants Reply on the Motion to Dismiss the FAC isdue on May 14, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
44 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File a Sur−Reply filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Proposed Sur Reply, # 2 Declaration Eliasberg Dec & Exhibits, # 3 Declaration Keeny Dec & Exhibit, # 4 Declaration Yuen Dec & Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
45 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 36 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
46 RDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 44 Plaintiffs ex parte application to file a sur−reply and will allow Defendants to file a response to the sur−reply by May 16, 2012. That response may only address the evidence and arguments made in the surreply. (lc) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
47 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Leroy Bacato EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File a Sur−Reply 44 (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
48 OPPOSITION to Defendant's Request for 10−14 Days to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Sur−Reply filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas. (Leung, Jade) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
49 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Removal of ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. CLARK. 29 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
50 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS JONATHAN GOODWIN, ALEX ROSAS 20 , MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF ACLU ASCOUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF A STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER 29 and the MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 11 of 22

05/25/2012 05/25/2012 05/31/2012
06/07/2012 06/11/2012 06/11/2012 06/21/2012 06/26/2012 06/29/2012 07/02/2012
07/03/2012 07/03/2012 07/06/2012 07/17/2012 07/20/2012

COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT LEROY BACA 36 are hereby continued from May 21, 2012 to Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
51 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Leroy Baca of SIX MONTH STATUS UPDATE OF JAIL REFORMS CONTAINING NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
52 NOTICE OF LODGING filed "SIX MONTH STATUS UPDATE OF JAIL REFORMS" CONTAINING NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL SYSTEM re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 51 (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
53 MINUTES OF Motion for Class Certification 20 ; Motion for Removal of ACLU as Counsel for Plaintiffs due to their Violation of a Stipulation and Court Order 29 ; Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 36 ; Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court hears oral argument and takes the matters under submission. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (sch) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
54 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 20 AND DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 36 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
55 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that the MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF ACLU AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 29 is hereby denied. (lc) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
56 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 35 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney David Shapiro on behalf of Plaintiff Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, designating Peter Eliasberg as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
57 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 32 JURY DEMAND. filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca.(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
58 ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 8/30/12 3:00 PM; compliance with FRCP 26(f) and filing of Rule 26(f) Report by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
59 REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE filed by Defendant Leroy Baca (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
60 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 59 . The following error(s) was found: pdf is a request for a settlement conference; Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Request: order, to which the missing separate proposed order should have been submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
61 REQUEST for Order for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
62 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosasto REQUEST for Order for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 61 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Leung, Jade) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
63 REPLY filed by Defendant Leroy Baca to REQUEST for Order for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 61 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Zuiderweg, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
64 DECLARATION of Justin W. Clark re Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
65 STIPULATION to Continue Joint Rule 26(f) Report (to be due 8/9/12) and Scheduling Conference from 8/30/12 to 9/6/12 filed by defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 12 of 22

07/24/2012 08/09/2012 08/10/2012
08/15/2012 08/15/2012
08/16/2012
08/17/2012 08/20/2012 08/30/2012 09/05/2012 09/06/2012 09/07/2012

66 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 65 the Rule 26(f) Reportshall be filed on or before August 9, 2012. The August 30, 2012 SchedulingConference shall be continued to September 6, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. (lc) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
67 JOINT RULE 26(F) REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca, Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Mueller, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
68 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE DEAN D. PREGERSON granting 61 Request: DATE: August 31, 2012, TIME: 10:00 a.m., LOCATION: Courtroom 3, 2nd Floor U.S. Courthouse 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE FOR THIS CASE. The request for a Settlement Conference is granted. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
69 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION filed by DEFENDANT Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Zuiderweg, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
70 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report 67 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
71 to Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 69 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Steve Martin, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Marisol Orihuela, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 5)(Mueller, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
72 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 69 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Zuiderweg, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
73 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION UNTIL TEN COURT DAYS AFTER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 69 Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
74 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED the LOCAL RULE 16−14.4 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE is hereby continued from August 31, 2012 to October 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
75 SUPPLEMENT to Report 67 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Durrant, John) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
76 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.Court and counsel confer re case status. Court sets trial dates. (Refer to the SCHEDULING ORDER to be issued hereafter.)Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
77 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson Pursuant to FRCP 16(b): Counsel must agree on date for the disclosure of expert witness reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)2:FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF 05/−20/−13; EXCHANGE

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 13 of 22

09/25/2012 09/28/2012
10/09/2012 10/12/2012 01/25/2013 02/01/2013 02/14/2013 02/22/2013 02/25/2013 03/04/2013 05/21/2013 05/22/2013 06/26/2013

SIMULTANEOUS INITIAL REPORTS 06/21/13; SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORTS 07/19/13; EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF 09/09/13; LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS 09/30/13; FINAL PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE 01/13/14 at 11:00 a.m.; COURT TRIAL 01/28/14 at 9:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
78 STATUS REPORT REGARDING ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
79 2012 Annual Report on Conditions Inside LA County Jails filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas (Attachments: # 1 Violence Report, # 2 Declaration Expert Steve Martin, # 3 Declaration Eliasberg, # 4 Exhibit Eliasberg Dec Exhibits, # 5 Declaration Civilian Witnesses, # 6 Inmate Dec Index, # 7 Declaration Inmate Decs A−I, # 8 Declaration Inmate Decs J−Q, # 9 Declaration Inmate Decs R−V, # 10 Declaration Inmate Decs W−Z, # 11 Declaration Inmate Decs AA−DD, # 12 Declaration Inmate Dec EE1, # 13 Declaration Inmate Dec EE2, # 14 Declaration Inmate Dec EE3, # 15 Declaration Inmate Decs FF−JJ, # 16 Declaration Inmate Decs KK−MM, # 17 Declaration Inmate Dec NN1, # 18 Declaration Inmate Dec NN2, # 19 Declaration Inmate Dec NN3, # 20 Declaration Inmate Dec NN4, # 21 Declaration Inmate Decs OO−RR, # 22 Declaration Inmate Decs SS−ZZ, # 23 Declaration Inmate Decs AAA−EEE, # 24 Declaration Inmate Decs FFF−JJJ)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
80 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Peter J Eliasberg counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas.David M. Shapiro is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Rosas (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
81 MINUTES OF LOCAL RULE 16−14.4 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court conducts settlement conference. Court Reporter: None Present. (bm) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
82 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the STATUS CONFERENCE RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER (COURT ORDERED 01−25−13) is hereby set for Friday, February 1, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
85 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer re Protective Order.Court Reporter: none. (lc) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
83 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Protective Order)(Beach, Paul) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
84 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson re Stipulation for Protective Order 83 (lc) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
86 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Peter J Eliasberg counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas.Marisol Orihuela is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Rosas (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
87 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Paul B Beach counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Corie M. Burton will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriff Leroy D. Baca (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
88 STIPULATION to Vacate Scheduling Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, 77 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Stipulation to Vacate Dates in Scheduling Order)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
89 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 88 All dates under current scheduling order dated September 7, 2012 are vacated. The Court sets a STATUS CONFERENCE RE: TRIAL DATES for September 16, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
90 APPLICATION for attorney Eric G. Balaban to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate, # 2 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 14 of 22

06/27/2013 06/28/2013
09/30/2013 10/22/2013 10/23/2013 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 02/28/2014 05/15/2014 05/22/2014 05/22/2014

91 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 90 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Eric G. Balaban on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Peter Eliasberg as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
92 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: APPLICATION for attorney Eric G. Balaban to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) 90 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): No signature on Application. Local counsel did not sign the application. See LR 11−1. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lt) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
93 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Settlement Conference set for 10/23/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. A party may, at its option, submit a confidential settlement letter no later than the day before the settlement conference. The letter should not be filed, but should be submitted directly to Chambers. (lc) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
94 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, ORDERING letter submitted by non party Albert Barnes received on 10/17/13 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 83−2.5 No letters to the judge. (lc) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
95 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:Court conducts settlement conference without reaching a resolution. The Settlement Conference is continued to January 9, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (rp) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
96 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: LOCAL RULE 16−14.4 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer. The matter is continued to Friday, February 28, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
97 AMENDED MINUTES 96 OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: LOCAL RULE 16−14.4 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer. The matter is continued to Friday, February 28, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. Court Reporter: NONE. (lc) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
98 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:Court conducts settlement conference.Court Reporter: None. (lc) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
99 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED a STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT is set for Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
100 MINUTES OF Status Conference re settlement held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court, parties and counsel confer. An additional Status Conference re: Settlement is set for June 12, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.Court Reporter: None. (lc) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
101 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The parties have met and conferred in the presence of the court to discuss settlement of this entire matter. The parties agree that a panel of experts, comprised of Richard Drooyan,Robert Houston, and Jeffrey Schwartz, shall be retained to prepare an Action Plan relating to certain policies and practices employed in the Los Angeles County Jails. The parties will submit a list of areas of concern to the Panel no later than Wednesday, May 28, 2014. The Panel has been granted broad authority, including the authority to address subjects not raised by the parties and/or to conclude that further action is not required on certain issues. The Panel will endeavor to complete the Action Plan as soon as practicable, and, absent compelling justification, not later than August 22, 2014. Defendant will circulate a proposed Settlement Agreement memorializing this understanding by May 29, 2014. Plaintiffs will respond, if at all, by June 5, 2014. A status conference regarding the settlement shall be set for June 12, 2014, as reflected by separate minute order of this court. Should the parties reach a Settlement Agreement prior to that date, they shall inform the court that a further conference may not be necessary. The court commends the parties for their continued efforts to resolve this matter efficiently and expeditiously. (lc) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 15 of 22

06/12/2014 07/09/2014
07/10/2014 07/11/2014 08/11/2014
09/19/2014 10/03/2014 10/08/2014
01/06/2015 01/23/2015
01/29/2015 01/30/2015
01/30/2015 02/05/2015

102 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: An additional STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT is hereby set for July 10, 2014 at 3:30 p.m.Court Reporter: none. (lc) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
103 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL AND PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED, that on the Court's own motion, the STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT shall be heard on the original date of July 10, 2014 at the new time of 2:30 p.m. [one hour earlier] − if this is problematic for any party, contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk immediately. (lc) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
105 AMENDED MINUTES held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT (COURT ORDERED 06−12−14) Court and counsel confer. (bp) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
104 MINUTES OF Status Conference re settlement held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:Court and counsel confer.Court Reporter: none. (lc) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
106 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Paul B Beach counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Filed by Defendant Sheriff John Scott, in his official capacity only. Alexandra B. Zuiderweg is no longer Attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reasons indicated in the G−123 Notice.. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
107 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: At the request of the parties, the Panel shall complete the Action Plan no later than October 6, 2014. No further continuances shall be granted. The parties shall finalize the Settlement Agreement no later than September 26, 2014. (lc) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
108 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:At the request of the parties and for good cause shown, the time to complete the Action Plan is extended to October 13, 2014. (lc) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
109 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Elizabeth Christie Mueller counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Jade H. Leung is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Attorney Jade H. Leung. (Mueller, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
110 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of the Action /Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Preliminary Approving Parties' Proposed Settlement)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
111 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PARTIES PROPOSED SETTLEMENT (SEE DOCUMENT for specifics and deadlines) 110 . Final approval of the Settlement is subject to a hearing and to review by the Court of any objections submitted by Class Members to the terms of the Settlement. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on April 13, 2015 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
112 STIPULATION to Reschedule Fairness Hearing filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Rescheduling Fairness Hearing)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
113 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Intervene filed by Intervenor Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). Motion set for hearing on 3/2/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attorney Elizabeth J Gibbons added to party Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)(pty:bkmov))(Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
114 DECLARATION of Don Jeffrey Steck and Richard A. Shinee in support of MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
115 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO INTERVENE, DOCKET NO. 113 from 3/2/15 to 3/9/15 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Beach, Paul) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 16 of 22

02/09/2015
02/10/2015
02/17/2015 02/17/2015 02/17/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 03/04/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/10/2015 03/18/2015
03/23/2015

116 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TOINTERVENE, 115 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The hearing on ALADS Motion to Intervene 113 is continued to March 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Any opposition papers to the Motion to Intervene shall be filed on or before February 17, 2015. Any replies shall be filed on or before February 24, 2015; and, 2. Defendant shall not take any action to disadvantage any right ALADS may have to intervene as a result of the continuance of the hearing. (lom) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
117 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 112 the Fairness Hearing on the parties proposed settlement be continued from April 13, 2015 to April 20, 2015 at 10:00 am ; that the date by which Class Members must submit written objections be moved to March 24, 2015; and that all other dates set forth in the Courts January 23, 2015 order preliminarily approving the parties proposed settlement remain the same. (lc) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
118 OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
119 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. correcting Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 118 (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
120 Opposition re: MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Objections to Evidence, # 2 Declaration of Esther Lim, # 3 Declaration of John S. Durrant, # 4 Exhibit A − Part 1, # 5 Exhibit A − Part 2, # 6 Exhibit B − O, # 7 Exhibit P − Q, # 8 Exhibit R, # 9 Exhibit S − U)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
121 REPLY in upport of MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). (Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
122 REPLY in support of MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). (Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
123 DECLARATION of Richard A. Shinee in support of MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
124 Objections to Evidence in support of re: MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Movant Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). (Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
125 Objection Opposition re: MOTION to Intervene 113 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to Alads's Reply Declaration of Richard A. Shinee filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Durrant, John) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
126 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, on the Court's own motion, the MOTION TO INTERVENE 113 is hereby continued from March 9, 2015 to Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
127 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY re MOTION to Intervene 113 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Durrant, John) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
128 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authorities Motion Related Document 127 filed by Intervener Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). Motion set for hearing on 3/16/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Gibbons, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
129 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: RE MOTION TO INTERVENE 113 ; MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES FILED BY INTERVENER ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS 128 .Court hears oral argument. The matters are denied with an order to be issued hereafter.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) Modified on 3/18/2015 (lc). (Entered: 03/18/2015)
130 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas. Motion set for hearing on 4/20/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 17 of 22

03/24/2015 03/25/2015
04/16/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015
12/15/2015 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/07/2016

In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 2 Declaration Durrant Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 3 Declaration Eliasber Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 4 Declaration Lim Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 5 Declaration Winter Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 6 Declaration Vail Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, # 7 Declaration Lebano Declaration In Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
131 Notice of Request to Speak at Fairness Hearing on Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
132 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 131 . pdf is a request to speak at the Fairness hearing.The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Request: Order., to which the missing proposed order should be submitted as a separate attachment thereto. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
133 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re [Proposed] Order re MOTION for Settlement Approval of Settlement Agreement 130 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Approving class Settlement, Retaining Jurisdiction to Enforce Terms of Settlement Agreement, Dismissing Action, # 2 Exhibit Implementation Plan)(Durrant, John) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
134 MINUTES OF FAIRNESS HEARING AND MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 130 held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:Court and counsel confer as reflected on the record. The motion is taken under submission. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
135 ORDER APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT, RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, DISMISSING ACTION (SEE DOCUMENT RE APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT PANEL TO DEVELOP AND EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND EXPENSES OF $950,000.00. AND FOR OTHER SPECIFICS THEREIN). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 130 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 4/21/2015 (lc). (Entered: 04/21/2015)
136 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Karen Joynt as counsel of record for Defedants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Defendants. (Attorney Karen C Joynt added to party Leroy Baca(pty:dft))(Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
137 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Tiana J. Murillo as counsel of record for County of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defedant County of Los Angeles. (Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
138 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney John S Durrant counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Elizabeth Mueller will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Elizabeth Mueller is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin. (Durrant, John) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
139 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 137 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 18 of 22

01/11/2016 04/07/2016 05/10/2016 05/11/2016 06/15/2016 06/16/2016
06/17/2016 09/08/2016 03/01/2017 08/15/2017
08/15/2017
08/16/2017
09/18/2017

140 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Tiana J. Murillo as counsel of record for County of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
141 PANEL'S FIRST REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Drooyan, Richard) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
142 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Stephen J Turanchik counsel for Plaintiff Alex Rosas. Adding Stephen J. Turanchik as counsel of record for Alex Rosas for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Stephen J. Turanchik. (Attorney Stephen J Turanchik added to party Alex Rosas(pty:pla))(Turanchik, Stephen) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
143 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney John S Durrant counsel for Plaintiff Alex Rosas. John S. Durrant is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Alex Rosas. (Durrant, John) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
144 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
145 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE due to Unavailability of Judicial Officer filed. The previously assigned Magistrate Judge is no longer available. Pursuant to directive of the Chief Magistrate Judge and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the case has been returned to the Clerk for reassignment. This case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner for any discovery and/or post−judgment matters that may be referred. Case number will now read as 2:12−cv−00428 DDP(MRWx). (rn) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
146 ORDER GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (See Order for details) re Stipulation for Protective Order 144 (vm) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
147 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Tiana J. Murillo is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Leroy D. Baca. (Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
148 PANEL'S SECOND REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Drooyan, Richard) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
149 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Sam S Puathasnanon counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Adding Sam S. Puathasnanon as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Alex Roses and Jonathan Goodwin. (Attorney Sam S Puathasnanon added to party Jonathan Goodwin(pty:pla), Attorney Sam S Puathasnanon added to party Alex Rosas(pty:pla))(Puathasnanon, Sam) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
150 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Kyle Michael Jones counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Adding Kyle M. Jones as counsel of record for Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin. (Attorney Kyle Michael Jones added to party Jonathan Goodwin(pty:pla), Attorney Kyle Michael Jones added to party Alex Rosas(pty:pla))(Jones, Kyle) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
151 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 150 . The following error(s) was/were found: Section 1 of Notice of Appearance and Withdrawal has typographical error re: CA Bar Number of attorney In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
152 MOTION WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL E−FILED 5/14/2018 − NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Motion set for hearing on

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 19 of 22

09/19/2017 09/21/2017 09/21/2017
09/22/2017 09/27/2017 09/29/2017
10/02/2017 10/02/2017 10/19/2017 10/30/2017

10/16/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, # 3 Declaration of Sam Puathasnanon is Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B Part 1, # 6 Exhibit B Part 2, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H, # 13 Appendix A to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement) (Jones, Kyle) Modified on 5/15/2018 (shb). (Entered: 09/18/2017)
153 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Amie S Park counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Amie S. Park as counsel of record for Leroy Baca, et al. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Leroy Baca, et al.. (Attorney Amie S Park added to party Leroy Baca(pty:dft))(Park, Amie) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
154 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Eric G Balaban counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Margaret Winter is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Eric Balaban. (Balaban, Eric) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
155 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 153 . The following error(s) was/were found: Section 1 of Notice of Appearance and Withdrawal portrays erroneous party In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
156 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from October 16, 2017 to November 6, 2017 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
157 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from October 16, 2017 to November 20, 2017 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
158 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, 157 . The Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement be continued until November 20, 2017 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 9c to permit the parties to engage in a further meet and confer process; The Court also hereby ORDERS that the Opposition and Response to Plaintiffs Motion are continued pursuant to the Local Rules according to the new hearing date so that Defendants Opposition is due, at latest, October 30, 2017, and Plaintiffs Reply is due, at latest, November 6, 2017. (shb) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
159 Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of Counsel filed by Defendant Leroy Baca (Park, Amie) Modified on 10/4/2017 (shb). (Entered: 10/02/2017)
160 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING 159 Request to Substitute Attorney Amie S. Park for Defendant Leroy Baca. Attorney Paul B Beach and Justin W Clark terminated (shb) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
161 STIPULATION for Attorney Fees in the amount of $$60,000, Re: Judgment,, 135 , filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
162 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jeremy D Matz counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Jeremy D. Matz as counsel of record for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attorney Jeremy D Matz added to party Leroy Baca(pty:dft))(Matz, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 20 of 22

10/30/2017
10/30/2017 10/31/2017
10/31/2017
11/03/2017 11/13/2017 11/15/2017 11/27/2017 11/28/2017 12/15/2017 12/18/2017
01/12/2018 01/16/2018

163 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Kimberley M. Miller counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Kimberley M. Miller as counsel of record for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attorney Kimberley M. Miller added to party Leroy Baca(pty:dft))(Miller, Kimberley) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
164 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing On Plaintiffs' Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement from 11/20/17 to 12/4/17 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Kimberley) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
165 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Nicolas Morgan counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Adding Nicolas Morgan as counsel of record for Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin. (Attorney Nicolas Morgan added to party Jonathan Goodwin(pty:pla), Attorney Nicolas Morgan added to party Alex Rosas(pty:pla))(Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
166 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Sam S Puathasnanon counsel for Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. Sam S. Puathasnanon is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin on behalf of themselves and of those similarly situated. (Puathasnanon, Sam) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
167 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement rescheduled for 12/4/2017 at 10:00 a.m. (pg) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
168 STIPULATION to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from 12/4/17 to 12/18/17 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Kimberley) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
169 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement for December 18, 2017 at 10:00a.m. (pg) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
170 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing On Plaintiffs' Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement from December 18, 2017 to January 8, 2018 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Kimberley) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
171 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING the Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement to January 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (pg) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
172 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing On Plaintiffs' Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement from 1/18/18 to 2/5/18 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Kimberley) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
173 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 172 . The Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Plaintiffs Motion) be continued until February 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants Opposition is due, at latest, January 12, 2018, and Plaintiffs Reply is due, at latest, January 19, 2018. (shb) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
174 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from 2/5/18 to 2/26/18 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Matz, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
175 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, 174 . The Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement The Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement be continued until February 26, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. The Court also hereby ORDERS that

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 21 of 22

01/19/2018 02/05/2018 02/06/2018 02/16/2018 02/23/2018 03/22/2018 03/26/2018 03/27/2018
04/06/2018
04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/20/2018

the Opposition and Response to Plaintiffs Motion are continued pursuant to the Local Rules according to the new hearing date so that Defendants Opposition is due, at latest, February 5, 2018, and Plaintiffs Reply is due, at latest, February 12, 2018. (shb) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
176 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation to Attorneys' Fees 161 . (pg) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
177 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Related Deadlines from February 26, 2018 to March 12, 2018 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
178 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court GRANTS the Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 for March 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM. (pg) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
179 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel Dyer, # 2 Declaration of Jeremy Matz, # 3 Exhibit A to Matz Decl., # 4 Exhibit B to Matz Decl., # 5 Exhibit C to Matz Decl.)(Matz, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
180 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Eliasberg in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit A to Eliasberg Declaration)(Jones, Kyle) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
181 PANEL'S THIRD REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Drooyan, Richard) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
182 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement to April 9, 2018 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Matz, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
183 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, 182 . The Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Plaintiffs Motion) be continued until April 9, 2018 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 9c to permit the parties to engage in a further meet and confer process. (shb) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
184 TEXT ONLY ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Pursuant to the parties notification to the Court, on the Court's own motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [Dkt. No. 152] set for 04/09/18, is hereby CONTINUED to 04/16/18 at 10:00 a.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pg) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/06/2018)
185 Second STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from April 16, 2018 to April 23, 2018 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
186 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 set for April 16, 2018, is hereby continued to April 23, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (pg) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
187 Third STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement from April 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

Case: 2:12-cv-428 As of: 11/12/2019 08:12 AM PST 22 of 22

04/20/2018 04/26/2018 04/27/2018 05/04/2018
05/07/2018 05/11/2018 05/14/2018 11/15/2018 01/23/2019 04/11/2019
05/31/2019

188 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 hearing set for April 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (pg) (Entered: 04/21/2018)
189 Fourth STIPULATION to Continue Hearing from April 30, 2018 to May 7, 2018 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
190 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court GRANTS Fourth Stipulation to Continue Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 152 hearing from April 30, 2018 to May 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (pg) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
191 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff [Dkt. No. 152] set for May 7, 2018, is hereby CONTINUED to May 14, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pg) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/04/2018)
192 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Leroy Baca.(Matz, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
193 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CLASS COUNSELS ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. See order for details. (shb) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
194 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Enforce,, 152 filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Morgan, Nicolas) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
195 PANEL'S FOURTH REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Drooyan, Richard) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
196 STIPULATION for Attorney Fees in the amount of $$30,000 filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Goodwin, Alex Rosas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
197 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Steven G Edwards counsel for Defendant Leroy Baca. Adding Steven George Edwards as counsel of record for Los Angeles County Sheriff for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Attorney Steven G Edwards added to party Leroy Baca(pty:dft))(Edwards, Steven) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
198 PANEL'S FIFTH REPORT filed by Defendant Leroy Baca. (Drooyan, Richard) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

 
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
RECITALS
A. This Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on or about September 26, 2014, by and between Plaintiff Alex Rosas on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, as defined below, on the one hand, and Defendant Sheriff John L. Scott, in his official capacity (“Defendant”), on the other hand, (collectively, “the Parties”) with reference to the following facts:
B. Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin (“Named Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint, and thereafter a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy D. Baca, Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP, which arose out of certain alleged acts and/or omissions by Defendant (“the Civil Action”). In the Civil Action, Plaintiffs sought certain declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant as a result of purported events that occurred at Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”), Twin Towers Correctional Facility (“TTCF”), and the Inmate Reception Center (“IRC”) (collectively, “the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles”), and that allegedly resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff Class;
C. On or about June 7, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying a declaratory/injunctive relief class that, for purposes of this Agreement, is defined as “all inmates, now and in the future, in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles” (“the Plaintiff Class”);
D. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are represented by court-appointed class counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and Paul Hastings LLP (collectively, “Class Counsel”); and,
E. The Parties desire to settle all of the claims arising out of the Civil Action which Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have or may have against Defendant, including its employees, representatives, and agents, both named and unnamed, as of the date of this Agreement.
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
I. AGREEMENT CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY THE COURT AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
1. This Agreement and the obligations of the Parties thereunder are contingent upon the final approval by the Court, as set forth below.
2. This Agreement and the obligations of the Parties thereunder also are contingent upon the approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (“the Board”), as set forth below.

HOA.1098696.2

1

3. In the event that: (1) this Agreement does not receive approval by the Board; (2) this Agreement does not receive final approval by the Court; or (3) any appeal of the Court’s final approval of this Agreement is filed and not upheld on appeal, then this Agreement shall be of no force or effect and shall not be admissible in any court for any reason, except that Defendant agrees to pay reasonable compensation to the Panel, as defined below, for services rendered as of that date.
II. APPOINTMENT OF A PANEL TO DEVELOP A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN.
1. The Court will appoint Richard Drooyan, Jeffrey Schwartz, and Robert Houston (“the Panel”), pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to develop a corrective action plan (“Action Plan”) designed to ensure that the Plaintiff Class are not subjected to excessive force in the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, and to monitor and advise the Court on Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan.
2. The Panel will be entitled to reasonable compensation in an amount approved by the Board and the Court. Defendant will bear the cost of the compensation of the Panel.
3. In the event Mr. Drooyan becomes unavailable during the term of this Agreement, then Defendant will select his replacement. If Mr. Schwartz becomes unavailable during the term of this Agreement, then Class Counsel will select his replacement. If Mr. Houston becomes unavailable during the term of this Agreement, then the Parties will meet and confer to reach agreement regarding a replacement.
III. DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTION PLAN.
1. By October 6, 2014, at latest, the Panel will submit the Action Plan to the Court for its review and approval.
2. In developing the Action Plan, the Panel may consider provisions relating to Use of Force Policies, Practices and Documentation; Training and Professional Development Related to Use of Force; Use of Force on Prisoners with Mental Illness and other Special Needs Populations; Security Policies and Practices; and any such other areas regarding use of force as they may deem necessary. In developing the Action Plan, the Panel will make best efforts to make it consistent with the recommendations of the Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence, which Defendant is already in the process of implementing. In developing the Action Plan, the Panel will make its best estimates as to how long it should take Defendant to implement each recommendation and include those estimates in its Action Plan.
3. Prior to submitting the Action Plan to the Court, the Panel will provide a draft of the Action Plan to the Parties for their review and comment. After input from the Parties, the Panel may, in their discretion, revise the draft Action Plan. Within 30 days of the Panel providing a final version of the Action Plan to the Parties, counsel for Defendant shall submit the Action Plan and this Agreement to the Board for its review and consideration with respect to whether to approve the Agreement. Within 60 days of the Panel providing a final version of the Action Plan to the Parties, the Board shall decide whether it will approve the Agreement. If the Board

HOA.1098696.2

2

approves the Agreement, the Parties will seek preliminary and then final approval of this Agreement with the Court as set forth below. If the Board fails to indicate its approval or disapproval of the Agreement within 60 days of the Panel providing a final version of the Action Plan to the Parties, the Agreement will be deemed rejected at which time either Party may request confirmation from the Court that settlement discussions have ended.
IV. CLASS NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING.
The following procedures will govern the Court’s preliminary and final approval of this Agreement and notice to the Plaintiff Class:
1. Within 21 days of any approval of the Action Plan and the Agreement by the Board, the Parties will file a joint stipulation requesting that the Court grant preliminary approval of this Agreement, as well as approve the notice to the Plaintiff Class. The Parties will submit the proposed forms of all notices and other documents necessary to implement this Agreement to the Court, including the final Action Plan. The Parties will translate the proposed class notice into Spanish. Defendant will provide notice of the proposed settlement to the appropriate federal and state officials, as required by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
2. If the Court grants preliminary approval of this Agreement and approves the notice to the Plaintiff Class, the Parties will take the following steps to effect notice of this Agreement as required by the CAFA:
a. Defendant will promptly post a copy of the notice to the Plaintiff Class in both English and Spanish in the common area of all housing units in MCJ and TTCF and in places in the IRC where inmates who are being processed into the jails can read them;
b. Defendant will post copies of the notice to the Plaintiff Class in both English and Spanish in places where K-10 inmates and inmates in disciplinary segregation in MCJ and TTCF can read them. Defendant will provide copies of the notice upon request to K-10 inmates and inmates who have been in disciplinary segregation in MCJ and TTCF for more than 10 days during the notice period. Defendant will bear the cost of translating, printing, posting, and distributing the notice to the Plaintiff Class; and
c. Defendant and Class Counsel promptly will post a copy of the notice to the Plaintiff Class in both English and Spanish on their respective websites.
3. Objecting to the Settlement. The notice to the Plaintiff Class will provide that class members (“Class Members”) who wish to object to the Agreement prior to the fairness hearing may do so by filing with the Court a written statement objecting to the Agreement.
4. Fairness Hearing: On or after the later of: (1) 51 days of the posting of the notice to the Plaintiff Class, or (2) 90 days of the last date of service of the proposed settlement on the appropriate federal and state officials as required by CAFA, the Court will conduct a hearing for final approval of this Agreement (“the Fairness Hearing”). No Class Member will be entitled to

HOA.1098696.2

3

be heard at the Fairness Hearing (whether individually or through separate counsel) unless written notice of the Class Member’s intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing is served on counsel for the Parties no later than 21 days prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Court, in its discretion, may determine which Class Members, if any, who have requested to appear will be entitled to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing. No Class Member may object to this Agreement, unless copies of any written objections or briefs are filed with the Court and served on counsel for the Parties no later than 21 days prior to the Fairness Hearing. Class Members who fail to file and serve timely objections in the manner specified above will be deemed to have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to this Agreement or the Court’s approval thereof.
5. In the event that the Court grants final approval of this Agreement, it shall enter an order: (1) memorializing its final approval of this Agreement; (2) granting costs and attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel as set forth in Section XIII; (3) dismissing the Civil Action, with prejudice (including, without limitation, dismissal in favor of Defendant and all of its employees, representatives, and agents, both named and unnamed); and (4) retaining jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Agreement or modifying it in accordance with Section XIV(6) below. The Parties shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in the Civil Action, except as otherwise provided herein.
V. PERIODIC REPORTS BY THE PANEL.
The Panel will prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating Defendant’s compliance with the Action Plan (“Reports”) at intervals the Panel shall determine. The Panel will provide the Reports to the Parties in draft form prior to submission to the Court, will consider the Parties’ comments, and may in its discretion make responsive changes before submitting the Reports to the Court. The Reports shall state that they are created for purposes of this settlement. The Reports may not be used against Defendant in any other legal proceeding for any purpose.
VI. INSPECTION BY CLASS COUNSEL.
On reasonable notice, Class Counsel will have reasonable access to the Jail Complex in downtown Los Angeles, including without limitation staff, inmates, and documents, for inspection to evaluate compliance with the Action Plan. Class Counsel shall provide Defendant’s counsel with 10 days’ notice before any document request and 4 days’ notice before any on-site inspection. Defendant’s counsel shall have the right to be present for any jail inspection and/or discussion with Sheriff’s Department personnel. Defendant reserves the right to object, whether on privilege grounds or otherwise, to any document request made by Class Counsel. The Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes concerning objections to document requests from Class Counsel and if the dispute cannot be resolved, to submit the issue to the Court for resolution. Any information or documents obtained by Class Counsel under this section may be used solely for purposes of this action and may not be used in any other action for any purpose. Nothing in this section shall restrict monitoring activities by the ACLU (such as readily available access to Title 15 logs) in Rutherford v. Scott, Case No. CV 75-04111-DDP.

HOA.1098696.2

4

VII. RELEASE.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement and as separate consideration for the agreements contained herein, Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class hereby absolutely, fully and forever release, relieve, waive, relinquish, and discharge Defendant and its successors, predecessors, related entities, departments, subsidiaries, representatives, assigns, agents, partners, officers, directors, managers, insurers, shareholders, employees, and attorneys, including, without limitation, the Board and Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, A Professional Corporation, and each of them (“Released Parties”), of, and from, any and all known claims for equitable relief, subject to the following limitations: (i) this waiver shall not apply to claims based on acts or omissions arising after the date of execution of this Agreement; and (ii) this waiver shall be limited to the allegations made in the Complaint (which do not include claims for damages).

2. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class acknowledge their intention that, upon execution by the Parties and approval by the Court, this Agreement, except as expressly provided for herein, shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and settlement of and as a bar to all of the claims in the Civil Action. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class acknowledge that they have been informed by their attorneys, or otherwise have been informed of, and that they are familiar with, Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.

Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class hereby waive and relinquish all rights and benefits against the Released Parties that they have or may have under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, subject to the following limitations: (i) this waiver shall not apply to claims based on acts or omissions arising after the date of execution of this Agreement; and (ii) this waiver shall be limited to the allegations made in the Complaint (which do not include claims for damages).

3. Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class agree, represent, and warrant that they understand that the Civil Action involves arguable and disputed questions of fact and law, that the liability of Defendant for the alleged acts in the Civil Action is disputed, and that the consideration provided herein is not to be construed as an admission of liability by Defendant, which is expressly denied, and that this Agreement arises from compromise.

VIII. TERMINATION.

1. After the final approval of this Agreement by the Court, Defendant will implement each and every recommendation from the Panel contained in the Action Plan as soon as reasonably practicable. When the Panel certifies that any recommendation of the Action Plan has been implemented, it shall commence a period of monitoring the Defendant’s compliance with respect to that recommendation (“Compliance Period”). It is anticipated that there will be multiple Compliance Periods for the various recommendations contained in the Action Plan, and that

HOA.1098696.2

5

Defendant will implement and be judged to be in compliance with numerous recommendations in six months or less from the submission of the Action Plan to the Court, others in six to twelve months from the submission of the Action Plan to the Court, and there is a possibility that Defendant may be judged to have come into compliance with others more than twelve months from the submission of the Action Plan to the Court. If, after the Panel reports that the Defendant has initially reached compliance, the Panel subsequently reports that Defendant has fallen out of compliance, Plaintiffs may make a motion to the Court for contempt, but only after having engaged in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue of noncompliance with Defendant’s counsel and having allowed a reasonable period to cure noncompliance. The Court may exercise its equitable powers to fashion relief, including ordering compliance and extending the compliance period, consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Alternatively, Plaintiffs may request that the Panel propose a remedial plan, which may include an extension of the compliance period, consistent with the PLRA, for the Court’s approval.
2. Defendant may seek to terminate this Agreement through application to the Court, consistent with the PLRA, at such time as all of the following conditions have been satisfied:
(a) For those recommendations that the Panel certifies the Defendant has implemented in six months or less after the submission of the Action Plan to the Court: (i) Defendant must sustain compliance with each of those recommendations for either a period of at least 18 consecutive months or satisfy any alternative requirements imposed pursuant to Paragraph 1 above; and (ii) Defendant must sustain simultaneous compliance with all those recommendations for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to filing a motion to terminate;
(b) For those recommendations that the Panel certifies the Defendant has implemented in six to twelve months after the submission of the Action Plan to the Court: (i) Defendant must sustain compliance with each of those recommendations for either a period of at least 18 consecutive months or satisfy any alternative requirements imposed pursuant to Paragraph 1 above; and (ii) Defendant must sustain simultaneous compliance with all those recommendations for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to filing a motion to terminate; and
(c) For those recommendations that the Panel certifies the Defendant has implemented in more than twelve months after the submission of the Action Plan to the Court: (i) Defendant must sustain compliance with each of those recommendations for either a period of at least 18 consecutive months or satisfy any alternative requirements imposed pursuant to Paragraph 1 above; and (ii) Defendant must sustain simultaneous compliance with all those recommendations for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to filing a motion to terminate.
The period of simultaneous compliance for the recommendations that Defendant implements in six months or less need not run concurrently with the period of simultaneous compliance for the recommendations that Defendant implements in six to twelve months. Neither of those periods needs to run concurrently with the period of simultaneous compliance

HOA.1098696.2

6

for the recommendations that Defendant implements in more than twelve months if those recommendations that were implemented more than twelve months after submission of the Action Plan to the Court were ones the panel estimated in its Action Plan would take more than 12 months to implement. However, if Defendant fails to implement within 12 months one or more recommendations that the Panel estimated could be implemented in 12 months or less, Defendant must maintain simultaneous compliance with those recommendations and the recommendations that were implemented in six to twelve months after the submission of the Action Plan to the Court for a period of at least 12 consecutive months prior to filing a motion to terminate.
IX. PLAINTIFFS’ AND THE PLAINTIFF CLASS’S ALLEGATIONS, DEFENDANT’S DENIALS, AND LACK OF ADMISSION OF LIABILITY.
In the Civil Action, Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class allege that they have been subjected to a pattern of grossly excessive force, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant generally and specifically denies all Named Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff Class’s allegations. It is understood that this Agreement is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of Defendant and/or its employees, agents and former employees and agents of Defendant or any other persons.
X. AGREEMENT CONDITIONAL ON FINDINGS BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)
This Agreement will become null and void unless the Court, in its Stipulated Order and Final Judgment, makes findings that although this matter was not actually litigated or resolved on the merits, the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of the Federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violations of the Federal rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Notwithstanding any other term of this Agreement, the Parties stipulate that Defendant expressly disclaims and does not admit that Defendant is committing any violation of any Federal right. Except to enforce this Agreement, this Section of this Agreement shall not be admissible against Defendant in any court for any purpose.
XI. REPRESENTATION OF COMPREHENSION OF THIS AGREEMENT
In entering this Agreement, Plaintiff Alex Rosas, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, represents that he has relied upon the advice of Class Counsel, who are the attorneys of his own choice, concerning the legal and other consequences of this Agreement; that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read and explained to him by Class Counsel; and the terms of this Agreement are fully understood and voluntarily accepted by him. Plaintiff Alex Rosas hereby further represents that he has not received or relied upon any legal or other advice from Defendant, Defendant’s representatives, and/or attorneys.

HOA.1098696.2

7

XII. WARRANTY OF CAPACITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT.
Plaintiff Alex Rosas, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, represents and warrants that no other person(s) or entity has, or has had, any interest in the claims, demands, obligations, or causes of action referred to in this Agreement, except as otherwise set forth herein; that he has the sole right and exclusive authority to execute this Agreement; and that he has not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise disposed of any of the claims, demands, obligations or causes of action referred to in this Agreement.
XIII. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.
1. Assuming this Agreement is approved by the Court and the Board, and is upheld on appeal (if any), within 45 days of the later of the Court’s final approval of the Agreement or the resolution of any appeal, Defendant shall tender to Class Counsel a warrant in the amount of $950,000 made payable to “ACLU Foundation of Southern California” for full and final satisfaction of any and all claims by Named Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs related to the Civil Action. Class Counsel acknowledge and agree to provide to Defendant any and all paperwork and information including, without limitation, a duly executed W-9 IRS form, prior to receiving said payment.
2. Defendant will pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel for ongoing work to ensure compliance with this Agreement. The amount of fees and costs due to Class Counsel under this paragraph will be determined on a semi-annual basis for the duration of the Court’s jurisdiction over this Agreement. The Parties will try to reach agreement on these semiannual fee awards and submit a stipulation for the Court’s approval. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement on a semi-annual fee award, Class Counsel will submit a motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the Court will determine the appropriate amount of fees. Under no circumstances shall Class Counsel be entitled to payment of more than $30,000 per year in attorneys’ fees and costs to ensure compliance with this Agreement, exclusive of any fees and costs reasonably incurred to oppose any motion to modify or terminate this Agreement by Defendant.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if it becomes necessary for the Plaintiffs to incur additional legal fees in connection with a motion for contempt, the Court may award reasonable fees.
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS.
1. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
2. California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California and not construed for or against any party.

HOA.1098696.2

8

3. Successors and Assigns.
All of the terms and provisions contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.
4. Parties in Interest.
Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any persons other than the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, nor is anything in this Agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party to this Agreement, nor shall any provision give any third person any right of subrogation or action over or against any party to this Agreement.
5. Further Assurances.
Each of the Parties hereto shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection with the performance of their obligations hereunder to carry out the intent of the Parties hereto.
6. Modifications or Amendments.
No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid, unless in writing and signed by all of the Parties hereto and ordered by the Court, or, upon a motion of a party, the party seeking modification establishes that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.
7. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties with respect to its subject matter and any and all prior agreements, understandings or representations with respect to its subject matter are hereby terminated and canceled in their entirety and are of no further force or effect.
8. Captions.
The captions appearing at the commencement of the sections hereof are descriptive only and for convenience in reference. The sections, and not the captions, shall control and govern in the construction of this Agreement.

HOA.1098696.2

9

9. Severability.
If any part of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable, illegal, or in violation of any State or Federal law, that portion of the Agreement will be severable and the remaining portion or portions of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
10. Expenses.
Each of the Parties shall pay all of their own costs, legal fees, accounting fees, and any other expenses incurred or to be incurred by it or them in negotiating and preparing this Agreement, except as expressly set forth herein.

Dated: ____________, 2014

By:_________________________________ Alex Rosas, individually and on behalf of the Plaintiff Class

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Dated: ____________, 2014

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By:_________________________________ Peter Eliasberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, and the Plaintiff Class

Dated: ____________, 2014

PAUL HASTINGS

By:_________________________________ John Durrant Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, and the Plaintiff Class

HOA.1098696.2

10

Dated: ____________, 2014 Dated: ____________, 2014

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
By: ________________________________ Margaret Winter Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, and the Plaintiff Class
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By:_________________________________ Roger H. Granbo Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff John L. Scott, in his official capacity only

HOA.1098696.2

11