Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
2018-05-30

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text

1,607 chars
Even if particularized notice, specific to tasers, were
needed at the time Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado
acted, see Mendoza, 27 F.3d at 1362, controlling circuit and
Supreme Court case law provided it. We observed in 1988
that the taser is a “painful and dangerous device” and that “[a]
legitimate prison policy of carrying tasers to enforce
discipline and security would not warrant their use when
unnecessary or ‘for the sole purpose of punishment or the
infliction of pain.’ ” Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328,
336 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260,
1270 (7th Cir. 1984), and Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189,
195 (9th Cir. 1979)); see also Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton,
728 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that, as of May
2008, it was clearly established that taser shocks constituted
“non-trivial force” for Fourth Amendment purposes); Lewis
v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 478–79 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding
that it was clearly unconstitutional in 2006 to tase prisoners
maliciously and sadistically in the circumstances alleged);
Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442, 448–49 (4th Cir. 2008)
(holding that malicious and sadistic use of a taser on a pretrial
detainee’s breast and inner thigh was not de minimus force
and was clearly unconstitutional in 2005), abrogated on other
grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010); Hickey
v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that
using “stun guns” on nonviolent prisoners violates the Eighth
Amendment). The Supreme Court has long disapproved of
                    RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ                       35