Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles

Partial Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN; Dissent by Judge IKUTA

OPINION

The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department' (“LASD”) detained Jonathan Castro, in a sobering cell in the West Hollywood police station. Several hours later, authorities placed Jonathan Gonzalez, a combative inmate who had been arrested on a felony charge, in the same cell. Castro banged on the cell’s window to try to. attract attention. Officials at the jail ignored. Castro’s attempts to seek help. The County of Los Angeles and the LASD had not equipped the cell with audio monitoring, and the cell was checked only sporadically. Within hours of their co-confinement, Gonzalez severely beat and injured Castro. Castro sued individual LASD officials, the County of Los Angeles, and the LASD, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for violating his due process right as a pretrial detainee to be protected from harm at the hands of other inmates. After a trial, a jury found all Defendants liable. Defendants timely appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL 1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Late in the evening of October 2, 2009, two LASD deputies arrested Castro for *1065 public drunkenness, a misdemeanor under California Penal Code section 647(f). Castro, the…

with whom BE A and IKUTA, Circuit Judges join, dissenting in part:

I agree that the judgment against the individual defendants should be affirmed, 1 but I dissent from the affirmance of the judgment against the entity defendants. I agree with the majority’s conceptual approach: we must first determine whether the entity defendants had a policy or custom that caused Castro’s injury, and second determine whether the policy or custom reflected deliberate indifference. Maj. Op. at 1074-75. However, the majority understates what is necessary to show a policy related to Castro and uses “smoke and mirrors” to find deliberate indifference. Regardless of what evidence Castro might have, could have, or should have produced at trial, the record in this case — even construed in the light most favorable to Castro — permits only one conclusion: the County of Los Angeles did not have a policy or custom that reflected deliberate indifference and caused. Castro’s injury.

I. The Legal Standard for Monell Liability

The Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in explaining the basis for Monell liability. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, the Court held “municipal liability under § 1983 attaches…

with whom, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:

I join Judge Callahan’s dissent in full, but I write separately to express my dismay that the majority has misinterpreted Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466 , 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015), and made a mess of the Supreme Court’s framework for determining when pretrial detainees have suffered punishment in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

I

A pretrial detainee has a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from punishment without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 , 671 n.40, 97 S.Ct. 1401 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). According to Bell , when a pretrial detainee alleges a violation of a constitutional right (and does not point to a violation of any “express guarantee of the Constitution”), the only question is whether the situation at issue amounts to punishment of the detainee. 441 U.S. at 534 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 . This right to be free from punishment under the Due Process Clause is the only constitutional right at issue in this case; neither Castro nor the majority claims…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN MICHAEL No. 12-56829

CASTRO,

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05425-DSF-JEM v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; OPINION

LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT;

CHRISTOPHER SOLOMON;

DAVID VALENTINE,

Sergeant, aka Valentine, Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted En Banc March 22, 2016 San Francisco, California

Filed August 15, 2016

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Sandra S. Ikuta, Paul J. Watford, John B. Owens, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Graber; Partial Dissent by Judge Callahan; Dissent by Judge Ikuta

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s judgment, entered following a jury trial, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pretrial detainee alleging that his due process right to be protected from harm at the hands of…