willis last amended complaint - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, TYLER WILLIS, by and through his Attomeys, Sonia Mercado &

22 :i Associates, for his Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants, states as follows:

JURISDICTION

This is a civil rights action arising from Defendants' brutal beating, unreasonable

search and seizure, taunting and ridiculing of Tyler Willis a pretrial detainee at Lo

Angeles County Men's Central Jail (hereinafter "MCJ") on October 16,2009,

10-07390 JAK - 4TH Amended Complaint

8

1 Sonia M. Mercado (SBN: 117069)SONIA lVIERCADO & ASSOCiATES

2 5711 W. Slauson Avenue~ Suite 100Culver City, California 9u230

3 Tel: 310-410-2981- Fax: 310-410-2957E-mail: [email protected]

4 Counsel for Plaintiff TYler H. Willis

5

6

7

9

10 TYLER H. WILLIS~

II Plaintiff,

12 v.

13 ANTHONY D. VASQUEZ, MARK V.

14FARINO, PEDRO L. GUERRERO,JORGE F. SANCHEZ, COUNTY OF

15 LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELESCOUNTY SHERIFF'S

16 DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LEEBACA, CAPTAIN DANIEL S. CRUZ,

17 LT. XA VIER AGUILAR, SGT.

18 CHARLES MCDANIEL, ET. AL, andDOES 1-10.

19 Defendants.

20

21

'Y'_J

2425 1 .2627

28

- 1 -

flLEO

1012 HOV28 PH 3: 57CL~!<K us. DISTRICT COURT

Ct.NmAL nst OF CALIF.LOS ANGELES

BY=_ ._----

CASE NO. CV 10-07390 JAK (DTB)

[Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt]

FOURTH Al\1E DED COlVIPLAINTFOR DAl\1AGES ANDDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:10-cv-07390-JAK-DTB Document 165 Filed 11/28/12 of 16 Page ID #:1156

2

"j

4

5

6

7

8

9 2.

10

11

12

13

14

151 ..,

16 ' .)

17

18

19

20

21

22

r.)

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

upon 28 U.S.C. ~~ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4), and the aforementioned statutory

and constitutional provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental

jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 US.c. §1367 to hear and decide claims

arising under state law.

depriving him of his right to access to the court's and of due process of law. This

action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded

PARTIES AND PROCEDURES

Plaintiff TYLER WILLIS (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), brings this action

against ANTHONY D. VASQUEZ, MARK V. FARINO, PEDRO L.

GUERRERO, JORGE F. SANCHEZ, SHERIFF LEROY BACA, CAPTAINS

DANIEL S. CRUZ, LT. XAVIER AGUILAR, and SGT. CHARLES MCDANIEL

in their individual capacity, the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, the LOS

ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and Does 1 through io,

inclusive.

Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter "COUNTY"), is a chartered

subdivision of the State of California with the capacity to sue and be sued under

state law and Cal. GOY. Code ~91 0 et seq. It owns, operates, manages, directs and

controls Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

(hereinafter "LASD"), also a separate public entity, which employs Defendants an

Doe Defendants in this action. COUNTY is responsible for the actions, omissions

policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies,

including the LASD, and its agents and employees acting within the course and

scope of their agency. COUNTY was responsible for assuring that the actions,

omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of the LASD and its

employees and agents complied with the laws and the Constitution of the United

States and of the State of California.



4.

2

..,J

4

5

6

7

8: 5.i!

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

17 6.

18

19

20 '!

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 7.

28 I

I1-3-

Defendant SHERIFF LEROY BACA (hereinafter "BACA") is and was at all times

mentioned herein the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. He was charged by law and

was responsible with the administration of defendant LASD and its employees, an

for the supervision, training and hiring of persons, agents and employees working

within said LASD, including supervisory officials, deputies, custody personnel.

BACA is sued in his personal and individual capacity as a supervisory official for

his own culpable actions or inactions.

Defendants CAPTAIN DANIEL S. CRUZ ("CRUZ"), WATCH COMMANDER

LT XAVIER AGUILAR ("AGUILAR"), and SGT CHARLES MCDANIEL

("MCDANIEL"), were at all times herein line supervisors, sergeants, lieutenants,

watch commanders, captains, investigators and were on duty at the MCl on or

about the time of this incident, are sued in their personal and individual capacity a

supervisors. They were cbarged by law and were responsible with the

administration of the jail and its custodial facility, its deputies, civilian officers an

line supervision, for training and supervising its officers, and deputies including to

ensure deputies compliance with policies and procedures.

Defendants Deputies ANTHONY D. VASQUEZ, MARK V. FARINO, PEDRO L.

GUERRERO, SR. DEPUTY JORGE F SANCHEZ, and Does 1 through] 0 were

at all times mentioned herein, deputies, custodial staff, and were employees of

COUNTY and LASD, acting under color of law. They were charged by law and

were responsible with the care, security, supervision, and safety of inmates, such as

Plaintiff, and were responsible for ensuring that Plaintiffs constitutional and

statutory rights were not violated. It was their duty and responsibility to protect

inmates, such as Plaintiff from excessive use of force by deputies; and, to report

deputy wrongful conduct that resulted in the infliction of un wan anted force or

violence against inmates such as Plaintiff.

The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10 CDoe

Defendants") are of line supervisors, deputies or civilian employees, who are

10-07390 lAK - 4TH Amended Complaint


2

..,J

4

5

6

7 8.

8

9

10

II 9.

12

13

14

15

16 10.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 11.

24

25

26

27\

28

-4-

on inmates was rampant.

unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Doe Defendants by such fictitious

names. Upon learning their nexus to this incident and their true identity, Plaintiff

will move to amend this Fourth Amended Complaint to show their true names and

capacities. Doe Defendants were at all times mentioned herein employees or agent

of COUNTY and LASD, and at all times acted within the course and scope of that

relationship.

Whenever reference is made in this Fourth Amended Complaint to any act by

Defendants and Doe Defendants, such allegations and references will also be

deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly

or severall y.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: on February 4, 2010, Plaintiff timely

and properly filed tort clai m pursuant teLa/. Gov. Code § 910 et seq. and on May

6,2010, Defendants denied the claim. Plaintiff has complied with the state claims

statute and as to all state claims, this action is timely filed

PRELIIVIINARY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On October 16, 2009, Pl aintiff was a pre-trail detainee housed in the 2000 Floor

of MCJ, in the custody of BACA and Defendants. It was well known at this

time by all Defendants and LASD chain of command that an inordinate amount

of violence and half the MC] killings occurred in the 2000 Floor; that a problem

of narcotic trafficking existing in the 2000 Floor; that some Me] employees(s)

were bringing drugs into MC] through the 2000 Floor; and that deputy violence

Defendants knew that many deputies belong to gangs inside the jails, and

particularly in the 2000 and 3000 floors. Like members of street gangs, these

deputies sport tattoos to signal their gang association, including using gang like

gestures. They beat up inmates to gain prestige among their peers, and "earn

their ink" bv breaking inmates' bones. They seek to control the jails, and to a

significant degree they do control the areas where they work.

10-07390 ]AK - 4TH Amended Complaint


12.

2

..,J

[

4

5

6

7

8

91]0

] 1 13.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 14.

21

22

23 II

241

2511\1

16 i\

27 15.

28

\1- 5-II

Such a deputy gang operates on the 2000 Floor of Mel. Oninfonnation and

belief, these deputy gang members call themselves the "2000 Boys" and

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

legs. A similar deputy gang, the "3000 Boys," is named for the third floor of

MCJ. Members of the 3000 Boys, who sport a "3000" tattoo on the backs of

their necks, inflict violence on inmates, foment violence among inmates, and

even deploy violence on other deputies who resist their abusive practices. The

2000 Boys and 3000 Boys have been operating with the knowledge, ratification

and acquiescence of BACA, Defendant supervisors and other high ranking

officials.

Inmates in LASD Jails live in fear of deputy violence. Itis typical for deputies

to subject unresisting inmates to grossly excessive force by slamming inmates'

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

their boots, and shooting them multiple times with their tasers. These beatings

result in serious inj uri es to the inmates, including broken legs, fractured eye

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

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

staples. Deputies also enlist, encourage or facilitate other inmates to CatTYout

savage attacks on other inmates.

This deputies' violence is not the work of a few rogue deputies, but a systemic

problem that has continued unchecked. It existed before this incident and has

continued thereafter.

FIRST CLAIlVI

AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, FARINO, GUERRERO AND

SANCHEZ FOR UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, USE OF

EXCESSIVE FORCE.

Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1-14 above and all paragraphs following this claim

as though fully set forth herein.



II,16.

2

'"'-'4

';;

~ II7

8

9

10 17.

II

12

13

14

15

16 I

17 18

18

19

20

21

22

?,-, j!--)

24 19.

25

Un reasons ble sea rch and seizu re - Sadistic and Humiliating Strip Search

On October 16, 2009, while housed in Module 2700, cell 4, Plaintiff observed

Vazquez taunting an old man inmate and causing him to cry and become

extremely distraught. As Vazquez walked away Plaintiff told the old man it was

best to keep quiet. Vasquez apparently heard Plaintiff and minutes later ordered

him to step out of his cell and row, saying, "So you wanna fucking be nosey

huh? Take it to the hallway." The 2000 hallway is a public area frequented by

medical staff, deputies, non custody civilian men and women including

maintenance, delivery, health care providers, other inmates.

Vasquez ordered Plaintiff to place both hands behind his head, face the wall, an

take off his clothing keeping his boxers all. Defendants Farino, Guerrero, Doe

Defendant I and Senior Deputy Sanchez approached. One of the deputies

asked, "what did you say to the guy that just came in?" Anotber asked, "what

the fuck are you in jail for anyway dude?" When plaintiff responded that he did

not want to talk about it, Vasquez scorned, "he's a fucking piece of shit!' and

then ordered Plaintiff to take his boxers off." Plaintiff complied.

Vasquez, wi th all Defendants joining in, then ordered Plaintiff to "squat down

like a catcher and cough three times," repeating this command more than 7

times, saying "cough louder dude, what the fuck are YOLl waiting for? Cough."

Vasquez was flashing his flashlight into Plaintiffs anal cavity area in plain vie

of all passing by, while simultaneously and continuously taunting, ridiculing an

laughing at Plaintiff. Plaintiff was greatly humiliated. All defendants agree that

Plaintiff complied at all times.

Defendants knew or should have known that "strip searches" and body cavity

searches at MCJ are prohibited in a public area. LASD policies mandate that,

26 \1-------1\ I All deputies and officers in LASD and MC] have computer access that reveal

27 \, to them the cnminal charges against any inmate lnmates are not required to

28 \~ discuss charges against them with deputies. . .\ 10-07390 JAK - 4TH Amended Complaint\-6-


2

"J

4

5 20.

6

7

8I

9

]0

1 1

12 21.

13

14

IS 'i

16

17

18

19

20 'l)1.::--,

21

22

7"~J

24

25

!26 I

I

27 23.

28

-7- 10-07390 JAK - 4TII Amended Complaint

"Personnel conducting searches shall take all reasonable measures to protect the

inmate form undue distress or embarrassment. Every effort shall be made toconduct these searches in an area of privacy so that the inmate cannot be

observed by persons not participating in the search."

Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Brutal Beating of Plaintiff:

Deputy Vasquez then ordered Plaintiff to enter module 2700 and to put both his

hands behind his head and face the wall. Plaintiff complied. Vasquez then

maliciously and violently pressed two fingers into Plaintiff's neck, inflicting

severe sharp pain and provoking Plaintiff's reaction to recoil from the sharp neel

pain. Immediately all Defendants jumped in to brutally beat Plaintiff without

j ustifi cati on.

Defendant Vasquez reports punching Plaintiff 2-3 times in the face with both

fists He repeatedly struck Plaintiff with his flashlight to hi s legs. Defendant

Guerrero reports deploying his X26 taser, fired at Plaintiff's stomach, hands and

struck Plaintifl.5-6 times on both ankles with his flashlight. Defendant Farino

reports that he punched Plaintiff 4-5 times in his face; he punched Plaintiff 2

times in the head with his fists; he hit Plaintiff in the left side of his back with hi

fist about 4 times; and he bit the left side of his back with his right knee about 3-

4 times. Plaintiff tried to protect himself but never retaliated.

At olle point, somebody yelled "Ya Stuvo" [a Spanish expression for 'that's

enough '] and Defendants stopped the brutal attack except for Vasquez, who

continued to use his flashlight again and again beating Plaintiff's legs and thigh

Plaintiff was left lying in the 2700 Module floor incapacitated, in excruciating

pain, bleeding, and unable to move. Plaintiff's face was so puffed he heard a

nurse gasp, "he looks like an alien." He was unable to hold his weight or walk,

and a deputy dragged him outside the module to the 2700 tloor hallway.

Defendant Sr. Deputy Sanchez was the supervising deputy, directly working

under Sgt. McDANIEL during this incident. He had an affirmative duty to stop


Plaintiff was taken theMCJ medical where Lt. AGUILAR did a videotaped

interview of Plaintiff (see ~32 infra), and then Plaintiff was transported to the

hospital for medical care and treatment. The f1ashlight strikes fractured

Plaintiffs right leg fistula in two areas, requiring a full leg cast; he had wounds

to his head; large bruises throughout his body; taser burns to his stomach; his

eyes were beaten, black and blue and closed shut; he had a displaced fracture of

left nasal process of maxilla and had difficulty breathing; extensive bilateral

facial swelling; be could only move with a wheelchair. Plaintiff suffered severe

15 physical pain which continued thereafter.

16 Retaliation to Cover Up Defendants' Wrongful Conduct, Violation of Due

17 Iprocess, and Denial of Access to Courts.r

1825. On October 17,2009, upon returning to IVlCJ from the hospital, due to his

2

...,

.J

4

5

6

7 24.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

19

20

21

22

24

25

2627

28

I1-8-I

his subordinates' brutality on Plaintiff, to report their misconduct to his

superiors, and to protect Plaintiff from this deputy violence. Sr. Deputy Sanche

took no corrective measures to discipline or ensure that his subordinate

deputies' misconduct was apprehended. Contrarily, he joined in this brutal

misconduct by assisting the deputies and/or by participating in covering up their

misconduct.

ongoing injuries and severe pain, Plaintiff continued requiring medical care and

treatment and was housed in a medical module. His face and eyes were swollen

his hands hurt and his broken leg throbbing with severe pain requiring daily

medication and nursing care. Defendants and LASD officers further retaliated

against Plaintiffby punishing him with disciplinary segregation (called the

"hole"), taking all privileges away (no phone or contact with attorney/family, no

access to the courts and no visits) and threatening to file false criminal charges

against him for assault on a police officer. Deputies would stop by hi s cell to

harass him stating "What bappened to you? You look like you got run over by

train ... look at the piece of shit from 2700."

10-07390 JAK - 4111 Amended Complaint


26.

2')

-)

4

5

6 27.

7

8

9

10 28.

II

12

Plaintiff had a pending court hearing scheduled for October] 9, 2009, but

Defendants refused to take him, causing him to miss a total of6 court bearings

and depriving him wilfully of access to the courts. In court, his father heard

deputies tell the judge that Plaintiff was lost in the jail and they didn't know

where he was.

As a direct result of Defendants Vasquez, Guerrero, Farino and Sanchez's

wrongful conduct Plaintiff suffered severe physical pain, severe injuries on his

face, head and body, back pain, headaches, pain to his leg and inability to walk,

inability to sleep, anxiety, fear, depression, emotional distress, and humiliation.

Plaintiff's injuries entitled him to compensatory and punitive damages accordin

to proof as to the individual defendants and to attorney fees and costs.

SECOND CLAI1VI

13 AGAINST DEFENDANT SHERIFF LEROY BACA, CAPT. DANIEL S. CRUZ,

14 WATCH COl\1lVIANDER XAVIER AGUILAR, SGT. CHARLES l\1CDANIEL

15 IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE,

16 TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS CAUSING CONSTITUTIONAL

17 VIOLATIONS.

18 )9.

19

20 30.

21

22ry""~.)

24

25

26

27 It

281

;-9-:I

Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1-28 above and all paragrapbs following this Secon

Claim as though fully set forth herein.

Sheriff BACA knew or reasonable could have known, of his subordinates'

ongoing constitutional violations, fail me to investigate and abate incidents of

deputy use of excessive force 011 inmates, failure to protect to provide reasonabl

security at the jail. He failed to act to prevent deputy violence and acquiesced,

condoned or ratified a custom, practice or policy of his subordinates ongoing

misconduct in the constitutional deprivations which led to the allegations herein

BACA is sued for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervisor

or control of his subordinates and for his conduct that showed a reckless or

callous indifference to the rights of inmates such as Tyler Willis. BACA's



IiI

1 II

21!

'"'.)

4

5 31.i61

,

7i8 32.

9

10111213

14

]5

16 ...,...,_~J.

171819

2021 34.

12

")'"'_.1

24 II

25

26 35.

2728

1

\-iot

affirmative conduct involves his failure to implement policies, rules or directive,

or to enforce them, which actions and/or inactions set in motion a series of acts

by others whicb he knew or reasonably should have known, would cause others

to inflict the constitutional violations alleged herein.

Capt. CRUZ, Lt. AGUILAR, and Sgt. MCDANIEL were line supervisors

involved in the investigation and supervision of their subordinate deputies durin r

and following this incident.

After the incident Plaintiff was dragged out of 2700 module and taken to the

MC] medical unit where Lt. AGUILAR conducted a videotaped interview of

Plaintiff as he laid listless and visibly brutally beaten in a Gurney. AGUILAR

and/or his subordinate read Plaintiff the "Miranda right," intimating that Plaintif

would be charged with a crime if he spoke. Lt. AGUILAR failed to investigate

(or performed a shoddy investigation) or report this incident to his superiors and

internal affairs, he failed to take corrective measures and to hold his subordinate

accountable.

Sgt. MCDANIEL was the 2000 floor sergeant on duty and directly responsible

for the conduct of Defendant deputies. He presumably observed Plaintiff. He

covered up the excessive LIseof force and reported that the beating of Plaintiff

was objective and reasonable, that it had been properly reported, and that

Defendant Deputies' use of force was within department policy.

Capt. CRUZ reviewed the incident report and the supervisor's incident reports.

He knew or should have known that Plaintiff was taken to the hospital for

medical care and treatment, which event would alert him to the seriousness of

Plaintiff's injuries He signed the content oftbe supervisor's report with

approval.

LASD Cap! Michael Bornman reported to the County Commission on Jail

Violence that Capt. Daniel S. CRUZ, (the MCJ Captain involved here) was

known to "laugh off his deputies?' violence and excessive use of force against

10-07390.TAK - 4Tll Amended Complaint


These supervisor Defendants failed to ensure the enforcement of LASD policies

procedures and regulations; they took no action to investigate (or did a shoddy

investigation), and they failed to discipline and to take corrective measures with

the wrongful conduct of their subordinates. Instead they condoned, ratified and

essentially covered up the Defendant Deputies brutal beating. Their actions and

inacrions set ill IIIorion a series of acts by others which they knew or reasonably

should have known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury and

12 prevent ongoing misconduct by their subordinates.

13 1\110 re Than a Decade of Knowledge and Notice to High Level LASD Supervisors

14 of Ongoing Deputy Violence and l\1isconduct.

I

III

2

3

4

5 136.

6

7

8

9

10

II

15 i137.16 I

:: II

19

20

21 II

i22

1

38"7~~..l

24 I

25

2627 Cl.

28

-1 \ -

Sheriff BACA, Capt. CRUZ, Lt. AGUILAR, Sgt. McDANIEL and other high

ranking officials became aware, or should have become aware, of repeated

incidents of supervisors failing to supervise subordinates who were deliberately

inmates by joking and intimating to his deputies that they could beat inmates as

long as the use of force or beating was "not in the face" of the inmate. Capt.

Bornman reported that Capt. CRUZ did 110tinvestigate instances of deputy

excessive force.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that prior to this incident

and subsequent hereto, BACA knew or reasonably should have k11ow11,that

sheriff deputies and custody personnel employed by COUNTY and LASD, in th

course and scope of their employment under color of law, committed similar act

of deputy's violence on inmates, failure to report such violence, failure to

investigate deputy misconduct and violation of inmates' constitutional rights an

ongoing use of excessive force on inmates, and delayed or denied inmates'

access to 111ed ical care.

indifferent to:

lncidents of deputies using excessive force on inmates;



b.

7

'/3 Ii c'I

4

5

6 d.

7

8

9 e.

10

II f.

12

13 g

14 ~

15 11.

16

17 39

18

19

20

21

22

')"_..1

I

24 II!

25 if

:~II,I

78 :1- 1

ii

-12 -

Incidents of using disciplinary segregation after deputies' use of excessive force

on the inmates:

Incidents of deputies and supervisors adhering to a "code of silence" and/or

cover up resulting in failures to report deputies' wrongful and unconstitutional

conduct;

Incidents of supervisors and high level officers condoning, ratifying, acquiescin ,

or encouraging deputy violence on inmates and wrongful conduct resulting in

senous injuries to inmates;

Incidents of failing to conduct investigations or conducting shoddy

investigations of incidents of deputy misconduct;

Deputies forming gang-like societies, sporting tattoos and used gang-like

symbols, such as deputies in the 2000 and 3000 floor;

Failure to take corrective measures, to train, and/or reprimand subordinates'

wronuful conduct andc: ,

Failure to timely and promptly perform investigations into jail violence resultin

in inmates' death and/or serious injuries.

[11 1999, under threat of a lawsuit by the DOJ, BACA and the COUNTY

submitted to a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the DOJ which

required BACA and the COUNTY to address and correct the continuous

constitutional violations to which inmates were being subjected, particularly

inmates suffering from mental problems. BACA personally signed the MOU.

However, after years of monitoring the County Jail system, under the authority

the MOU, in 2003, the DO] experts issued a report which still found

noncom pi iance wi th many of its recommendations regarding the abuse of inmat s

and the deficiencies which continue at county jail which constitutes a pattern an

practice of constitutional violations. BACA received the moni.toring reports and

was responslbk for the institution of policies and procedures to correct the

unconstitubonal conditions, but [ailed to do so.



2

3

4

5

8

9 II10 ilII 1141.12 il

13

14

15

16i

17 IJ 811

19

20

21

22 '142.,:j

23

24

25

26

In February 2004, BACA received notice from The Special Counsel to the Los

Angeles County Sheriff's Department, in the 17h Semiannual Report (February

2004) and the 18th Semiannual Report (August 2004) of increasing levels of

inmate violence in the jails. The report pointed out that although there was a

system that reviewed incidents of inmate disturbances and riots with the purpos

that its causes could be identified and that any implications for changes in polic ,

tactics, or training could be analyzed to improve security in the future, and that

some of the recommendations may have prevented much more serious incidents

from occurring, that BACA' S system in place for managing this information do s

not provide for its systematic, division-wide dissemination.

In 2005, Merrick Bobb, counsel for the county reported that from prior Kelts

Report onward, ther-e has been a paradoxical contradiction between Internal

Affairs investigations that exonerated the officer and litigation arising out of the

same incident that cost the County substantial money in settlement and

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

Wbile at times one might find instances in which the County's lawyers have

unwisely settled, It is far more common to find cases where the LASD let an

officer off the hook when a judge or jury would not. We can only say as we

have in the past that these disparities "fuel[] the fire of those who would strip th

Sheriff of tbe privilege of investigating and disciplining his own employees."

(Citing the Fifteenth Semiannual Report at 733-

Deputies' m isconduct was ending up costi ng coun ty tax payers mill ions of

dollars annually ill payments of civil judgments and settlements, in cases where

the internal investigations had found no wrong doing. In all, BACA was notifie

by his Special Counsel that a review of twenty-nine (29) cases involving police

misconduct and settled for $100,000 or more over the past five years, only eight

27

28 :\ 2 Merrick Bobb, PARC, J Ylh Sennannual Repor! 38 (Feb. 2005)."1\\' ') 10-07390 JAK _ 4TH Amended Complaint-b-


1I21

3 I

4 :

6

5 43.

7

8

9

10

J 1

12

13 44.

14 I

16

17

18

19

10

11

22 45.

241I

7)~ .- I

I

\

'>6 ii- III,

'I27 1\

28\\

'I -14-1!

In August 2009, another incident of inmate on inmate violence resulted in an

inmate death due to what was reported to be misclassification of a violent inmat

in a mental health housing area. However, Plaintiff is informed and believes an

thereupon alleges that the attack was facilitated by the failure of the deputies in

charge of the hOllSil1Q area to provide reasonable security and that they had~ ~

abandoned their post and duties so that the decedent was discovered in his cell

not by a deputy, but by a medical health staff doctor who was making regular


resulted in any type of discipline to the involved officers or policy change in the

Department. Thus, BACA was again aware of the systematic deficiencies in

supervision and lax discipline, but has failed to made policy changes knowing tl e

risk of harm created by allowing misconduct to go unaddressed.

On January 27, 2006, Dion Starr, an African American was a pretrial detainee at

MCl, housed in the 2000 floor. He had been attacked and stabbed by another

inmate, and while Starr lay on the floor bleeding and hurt, Deputy Bugarin calle

him a racial slur, and without justification kicked him in the face with steel toe

boots causing him severe further injuries and pain. After returning from the

hospital, he was punished with disciplinary isolation. BACA was personally

given notice of this incident and knew of the deputies misconduct and took no

action or corrective measures.

In 2007, the Office of Independent Review (BACA'S lawyers who review

investigations), gave nonce to BACA of deputies abandoning their posts, failing

to properly classify', failing to monitor, falling asleep, not following procedures,

failing to conduct timely security checks, deputies left inmates unsupervised,

including deputy use of excessive force, and deputies encouraging inmate on

inmate fights. (Public Oversight Report II Quarter 2007.) Although some

discipline was imposed, BACA failed to supervise the supervisors who were on

duty for their failure to report and recommend discipline and the misconduct

contin ued


4 Defendant BACA, Supervisor Defendants and Other High Ranking Officials

5 Knew of Ongoing Deputy Violence Against Inmates.

Degrading cruel, and sadistic deputy attacks on inmates are commonplace. Tim

and again, numerous deputies attack one inmate. Even as the inmate lies

motionless on the ground, new deputies are summoned by radio and join in the

attack. In the course of a beating, it is a common practice for deputies to yell

"Stop fighting!" or "Stop resisting!" to an inmate who is neither fighting nor

resisting. This practice is an effort to fabricate a reason to blame the inmates for

the attacks. The following are examples of ongoing deputy violence.

Darrell Garrett, June 2009: A group of cieputies assaulted Darrell Garrett in

Men's Central Jail while he was restrained in waist chains. Deputies shoved

Mr. Garrett from behind, causing him to tumble down concrete stairs. Deputies

then kicked Mr. Garrett in the face and head, while another deputy held him

down. As the beating continued, they hit him in the head with a plastic milk

crate, ground his face into the concrete floor, and emptied two cans of mace into

Mr. Garr etts mouth, ears, nose and eyes. The beating caused Mr. Garrett to

bleed profusely and to defecate Mr. Garrett blacked out as deputies transported

3

6 46.

7

8

9

10

II

12

13 [47.14 II

"]5 .

16

i17

18

19

20

21

23 :148.24125 \\

26 \\

27 II;\

28 :1!;ti

i 1-1- )-I

rounds. BACA was given notice of th is lapse of security but failed to require an

investigation into the question of why the cieputies were not present or vigilant ir

their duties to provide reasonable security.

him to medical. In the aftermath of the beating, deputies have threatened and

taunted Mr. Garrett, saying they are "going to get him."

Evan Tuft, July 2()09: While at MCJ Mr. Tutt complained daily to deputies

Delgado, Aviles, Ortega, Snyder, Rivera and Miramontes, of poor jail

conditions, including denial of showers, lack of hygienic supplies, denial of mail,

lack of access to the commissary. On July 26,2009, his girlfriend complained

that he was not allowed a visit. That day deputies Delgado, Aviles, Ortega,

Snyder, Rivera and Miramontes, after making a racial slur ("fucking nigger"),



they brutally beat and severely injured him. He was kicked all about his body,

legs, arms and head. He was hit with objects like a flashlight, kneed, tasered an

pepper-sprayed. They handcuffed 11 im and continued to beat him using racial

slurs. His injuries required hospitalization. After returning to jail from the

hospital, he was further punished and placed in disciplinary segregation for

"attacking the deputies." Supervisors took no action and instead ratified and

condoned the deputies' misconduct.

Michael Holguin, October 2009 Deputies beat Mr. Holguin so severely that he

was hospitalized with a broken leg, stitches on his face, and staples in his head.

The incident occurred as Mr. Holguin was on his way to the showers. A deputy

told him to go back to his cell, preventing him from using the showers. Mr.

Holguin asked him why, because he had not received a shower in weeks. The

deputy told him to turn around and placed Mr. Holguin in handcuffs The rest 0

the beating is a blur to Mr. Holguin; all he remembers is being punched in the

face by Deputy Luviauo and pepper sprayed. When the beating was over,

Deputy Rico said, "That's why YOLl don't say why; just do what you 're told."

When Mr. Holguin returned from the hospital, he was sent to disciplinary

segregation for "attacking a deputy."

Luis Bueno: J11I\11ay 2010, Luis Bueno was on his way to the church in MCJ.

Deputies told Me Bueno to turn around and return to his cell. As Mr. Bueno

was walking back to his cell, a deputy shoved him against the wall and asked

him if he wanted to get "fucked up." As other deputies arrived, the first deputy

forced MT. Bueno to spread his legs and put his bands behind his back. The

deputy then aimed his mace at Mr. Bueno's face. When Mr. Bueno turned his

head to avoid the spray, another deputy punched him in the neck. Three other

deputies joined in (me! began violently punching Mr. Bueno in the head and bod

27 Mr. Bueno was knocked to the floor, where the beating continued. When the

28 beating subsided, deputies took Mr. Bueno to the medical center, where he was

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 49.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 '150.

20

21 II22

')...,~J

24

25

1-16- 10-07390 JAK - 41H Amended ComplaintI


willis last amended complaint - 1

Documents

sheriff of los angeles

county of15 los angeles

defendants andoe defendants

defendant sheriff leroy

willis567910 tyler

state of california

state law

sheriff leebaca