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

775 chars
Finally, this analysis is consistent with our recent decision
in Reese v. County of Sacramento, where we addressed a
Bane Act claim premised on an alleged Fourth Amendment
excessive force violation. — F.3d —, 2018 WL 1902416, at
*6–7 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2018). We rejected a similar
argument based on Shoyoye, reasoning that Cornell’s
interpretation of the Bane Act was consistent with the
statutory language and the California Supreme Court’s
decisions. Id. at *8–9. We therefore held that “the Bane Act
does not require the ‘threat, intimidation or coercion’ element
of the claim to be transactionally independent from the
constitutional violation alleged,” but rather a showing of the
defendant’s specific intent to violate the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. Id. at *8.