Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

811 chars

under all of the circumstances”) and appellants’ subjective
intent (that “defendants acted maliciously and sadistically for
the purpose of causing harm”). Because Rodriguez did not
argue that this instruction was erroneous, the argument is
forfeited. See Castro, 833 F.3d at1071–72. In any event, the
error was harmless because Rodriguez prevailed at trial
despite having to prove the additional subjective element. Cf.
Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2477; Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d
898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the Eighth
Amendment’s subjective inquiry involves a “heightened
standard” that “necessarily involves a more culpable mental
state than that required for excessive force claims arising
under the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable seizures
restriction”). 2. Interlocutory Appeal and Chuman motion

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text