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

1,674 chars

With respect to county liability, appellees presented
evidence that the county had a custom or policy of ignoring
excessive force used by jail officials, thereby creating a jail
culture that proximately caused the beatings and tasing to
which appellees were subjected. Appellees submitted the
report, mentioned above, by the CCJV. The CCJV report
concluded, with respect to the Men’s Central Jail, that “senior
management failed to investigate the excessive use of force
problems” at the jail; that “[s]everal key department leaders
ignored deputy aggression and discouraged discipline” at the
jail; and that senior jail officials had not taken steps to
investigate approximately one hundred use-of-force
allegations.     The report recounted Department-wide
deficiencies in practices and policies governing use of force,
excessive force investigations, and discipline for using
excessive force. Appellees presented testimony from
appellant Cruz’s former supervisor, Commander Robert
Olmsted. Olmsted testified that he had investigated use-of-
force incidents at the jail and had found a major increase in
such incidents during Cruz’s tenure.               Olmstead’s
investigation uncovered problems in investigating and
reporting use-of-force incidents, and in approval of uses of
force. Olmstead concluded that Cruz had “condone[d]” his
deputies’ excessive force by investigating force incidents
improperly or not at all. Appellees also presented evidence
that dozens of use-of-force incidents were omitted from the
LASD reporting system, including all of the use-of-force
incidents at issue in this case.
                     RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ                        21

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text