Geoffrey Ernest Johnson

Case 2:13-cv-04496-MMM-AJW Document 19 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:888
EAGAN AVENA TTI, LLP

1 Michael J. Avenatti, Bar No. 206929 ":'!'H"l
L.J: ~;
mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
2 Scott H. S1ms, Bar. No. 234148
ssims(aJeaganavenatti.com
3 Car}os~. Qolorado, Bar No. 231031 '- ·~: :.
ccoloradoial,e(l'anavenattJ.com
4 450 Newport enter Drive, Second Floor
Newport13each, CA 92660
5 Tel: (949) 706-7000
I Fax: (949) 706-7050
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
II
12
GEOFFREY ERNEST JOHNSON, Case No. CV-13-4496 MMM (AJWx)
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
14 Plaintiff, FOR:
15 (I) Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
vs. (2) Violations of Cal. Civil Code §
16 52.1
LEROY BACA, an individual; LOS (3) Violations of Cal. Civil Code §
17 51.7
ANGELES SHERIFF'S (4)Violations of Cal. Gov. Code§
18 DEPARTMENT, a division of the 845.6
19 County of Los Angeles; COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, a political body; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20 DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I INTRODUCTION
2 1. This case relates to, among other things, Defendants deliberate indifference
3 to Plaintiffs constitutional rights while he was in Defendants' custody at the Twin
4 Towers Correctional Facility, a Los Angeles County jail run and operated by
5 Defendants (the "Twin Towers" or "TTCF"). For years, Defendants were on notice of
6 unconstitutional conditions at the Twin Towers, about persistent inmate on inmate
7 violence, about persistent violence by deputies against inmates, and about the woeful
8 inadequacy in their diagnosis, treatment, supervision, monitoring and handling of
9 mentally ill inmates and suicidal inmates, including deficiencies in the housing
10 placement of mentally ill and suicidal inmates. Nonetheless, Defendants exhibited
11 deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights by, among other things, failing
'
12 to adopt adequate policies, procedures, supervision and training to protect the
13 constitutional rights of inmates such as Plaintiff.
14 2. Defendants' actions, inactions, acquiescence in of the wrongful conduct of
15 deputies, and deliberate indifference to constitutional rights of inmates endangered
16 Plaintiffs safety, life and well-being, and caused his constitutional rights to be violated
17 on multiple occasions. By way of example, Defendants actions, inactions and
18 deliberate indifference resulted in: (1) a violation of Plaintiffs right to safety and
19 protection from other inmates when Defendants placed Plaintiff in a cell with an inmate
20 known by jail persmmel to have assaulted other inmates, and who proceeded to assault
21 Plaintiff; (2) a violation of Plaintiffs right to receive adequate medical care for his
22 mental health needs, including by improper and premature declassification and placing
23 him on an elevated floor even after he had already once tried to commit suicide while in
24 Defendants' custody by jumping from an elevated floor; (3) a violation of Plaintiffs
25 right to be free from punishment by deputies bullying and ridiculing him for his failed
26 suicide attempt; (4) a violation of Plaintiffs right to be free from excessive force by
27 deputies striking and shoving him on multiple occasions; and/or (5) a violation of
28 Plaintiffs right to be free from inhumane confmement by placing him for a period of
-I -
1 time in housing at the Twin Towers known as "spitters and shitters" - where cells are
2 literally covered in human feces and spit - even though Plaintiff did not exhibit any
3 conduct that could possibly justify housing him there.
4 3. Defendants' wrongful actions, as set forth herein, caused Plaintiff two
5 separate types of damage: (1) severe emotional distress which continues to this day; and
6 (2) severe physical injuries, including paraplegia.
7
8 PARTIES
9 4. Plaintiff Geoffrey Ernest Johnson ("Plaintiff' or "Johnson"), at all relevant
10 times set forth herein, was a natural person residing in the State of California, County of
11 Los Angeles. Plaintiff presently resides in West Hills, California.
12 5. Defendant County of Los Angeles ("COLA") is a legal and political entity
13 established under the laws of the State of California, with all the powers specified and
14 necessarily implied by the Constitution and laws of the State of California and exercised
15 by a duly elected Board of Supervisors, an appointed county manager and Sheriff, and
16 their agents and officers.
17 6. Defendant Los Angeles Sheriffs Department ("LASD" or "Sheriffs
18 Department"), at all relevant times set forth herein, was a public agency.
19 7. Defendant Leroy Baca ("Sheriff Baca") has been the Sheriff of the County
20 of Los Angeles since 1998. As a matter of law, Sheriff Baca is answerable for the
21 safekeeping of the inmates Los Angeles County jails. Cal. Gov't Code § 26605; Cal.
22 Penal Code § 4006. Sheriff Baca is responsible for the management and control of all
23 Los Angeles County jails and for matters relating to the selection, supervision,
24 promotion, training and discipline of the uniformed staff of the Los Angeles County
25 jails, including the deputies discussed herein. While others within the Sheriffs
1
26 department may assist Sheriff Baca from time to time with his responsibilities in that
27 regard, he has not delegated or abdicated his ultimate supervisory responsibilities, and
28
- 2-
1 Sheriff Baca supervises the deputies whose conduct is at issue herein. The LASD's
2 website admits this fact. It states:
3 On December 7 Leroy D. Baca was swom in as Los Angeles County's 30th
4 Sheriff. Sheriff Baca commands the largest Sheriff's Department in the world
5 and supervises more than 13,000 sworn personnel and professional staff
6 See http://www.lasdhg.org/aboutlasd/history.html (emphasis added)
7 Sheriff Baca is also responsible for the care, custody and control of all inmates housed
8 in the Los Angeles County jails. In a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement with the United
9 States Department of Justice, to which Sheriff Baca is a signatory, Sheriff Baca
10 admitted he is a person "responsible for overseeing and/or providing mental health
11 services to the inmates at [Los Angeles County jails]." Finally, Sheriff Baca has
12 publically stated he is the "ultimate authority" related to Los Angeles County jails and
13 is "ultimately responsible for everything that occurs in the jail." SheriffBaca is sued in
14 his personal capacity.
15 8. The true names of Does 1 through 50 are presently unknown to Plaintiff,
16 who therefore sues each of these Defendants by such fictitious names. Upon
17 ascertaining the true identity of a Defendant Doe, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint or
18 seek leave to do so by inserting the true name in lieu of the fictitious name. Plaintiff is
19 informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each Defendant Doe herein is in some
20 manner responsible for the injuries and damages herein alleged and that each Defendant
21 Doe herein pursued the course of conduct herein alleged while acting in the scope and
22 course of his/her employment and under color of state law. Defendants County of Los
23 Angeles, LASD, Baca and Does 1 through 50 are collectively referred to herein as
24 "Defendants."
25
26
27
28
- 3-
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 this Court has original jurisdiction
3 over Plaintiffs first cause of action for violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1983, which seeks
4 redress for violations of Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution. This
5 Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action
6 (causes of action two through four) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as such causes of
7 action are so related to claims in the first cause of action within the Court's original
8 jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
9 United States Constitution.
10 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over COLA and LASD because they
11 are governmental entities operating within the County of Los Angeles, State of
12 California. The Comi has personal jurisdiction over Sheriff Baca because he resides in
13 the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The Court has personal jurisdiction
14 over the Doe Defendants because such individuals serve as elected officials, appointed
15 officials, and/or are employed by govermnental entities operating within the County of
16 i Los Angeles and/or are located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and
17 they further reside in or around the County of Los Angeles, and in the State of
18 California.
19 11. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District
20 of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts complained of arose in this
21 District.
22
23 GOVERNMENTAL CLAIM SERVED AND DENIED
24 12. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff complied with the California Tort
25 Claims Act by serving a claim for damages on the Los Angeles County Board of
26 Supervisors on February 22, 2012. Defendants failed to give Plaintiff notice of any
27 untimeliness within 45 days (i.e. by April 7, 2012). Instead, on April 18, 2012,
28 Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter in response to his government claim stating: (a) that
-4-
1 as to activities on or before August 21, 2011, Plaintiffs claim was being returned
2 without any action being taken because it was not presented within the time allowed by
3 law; and (b) that as to activities since August 22, 2011, Plaintiff's claim was deemed
4 denied by operation of law on April 9, 2012. By failing to give Plaintiff any notice of
5 untimeliness within 45 days, Defendants waived any untimeliness related to Plaintiffs'
6 government claim. See Cal. Gov't Code § 911.3(b ).
7
8
ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF
9
13. Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department encountered Plaintiff on
10 April 24, 2011 at approximately 6:30 a.m. Upon first encountering the Plaintiff, the
11
officers found him completely naked, praying in the middle of the street outside his
12
apartment building.
13
14. Plaintiff was taken to Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a County owned and
14 operated hospital. According to Plaintiffs Inmate Medication Infonnation Form, he
15 exhibited "Severe suicidality" and "state[d an] intention to carry out suicide." The
16
Form stated that Plaintiff "believed that the only way to escape the plot of others to kill
17
him was to commit suicide." Specifically, the Form noted that Plaintiff "[p}lanned to
18 jump off the roof" Additionally, the Inmate Medication Infonnation Form stated that
19 Plaintiff exhibited, "[d]elusions (believed there was a plot/conspiracy to kill him by
20
burying him alive [and] he needed to kill himself first), Auditory hallucinations (heard
21
God's voice), Erratic behavior (found naked outside his apartment praying; suggesting
22
that he was responding to auditory hallucinations) and "Severe sleep apnea."
23 15. At Harbor-UCLA, Plaintiff was alleged to have lunged at a doctor who
24 tried to speak with him at about 12:20 p.m. on April 25, 2011. Plaintiff was then
25
arrested and taken to the Twin Towers. Plaintiff was charged with interfering with law
26 enforcement.
27
28
- 5-
1 , 16. On April 26, 2011 Plaintiffs father and sister informed Twin Towers
2 personnel of Plaintiffs mental illness and that he had been expressing suicidal thoughts
3 as recently as Friday April 22, 2011.
4 17. At the Twin Towers, Plaintiff was placed in a cell with a well-lmown "shot
5 caller" (a prisoner who wields authority within a prison ward) named "Wes." On
6 information and belief, Defendants were well aware prior to placing Plaintiff in the cell
7 with Wes that Wes had a lengthy violent criminal record and was !mown to assault
8 other inmates at Twin Towers. On further information and belief, jail personnel
9 purposely placed Plaintiff in a cell with Wes so that Wes would "teach Plaintiff a
1o lesson." True to form, Wes proceeded to assault Plaintiff the first night Plaintiff was
11 housed in the cell.
12 I 18. Shortly after he was assaulted by Wes, Plaintiff was taken from his cell and
13 escorted to a lobby area and was to be released. As Plaintiff walked past the deputy
14 station, the male deputy on duty at the station said to Plaintiff, "I heard you pushed a
15 1 deputy," (or words to that effect) and then shoved him from behind by placing both of
16 his hands behind and slightly under Plaintiffs shoulder blades and thrusting Plaintiff
17 forward. The shove sent Plaintiff careening forward such that he had to run and catch
18 his step to avoid falling down.
19 19. The interfering with law enforcement charge against Plaintiff was dropped
20 on or about April27, 2011. When Plaintiff was going to be released, two deputies tried
21 to place Plaintiff in a van, but he resisted in a non-violent and non-forceful manner by
22 making his body stiff. The deputies then forcibly bent Plaintiffs knees and shoved his
23 leg into the van with such force that it made a permanent mark on his leg that is still
24 visible to this day.
25 20. Plaintiff was then placed in a car and driven around the Los Angeles area.
26 During this time, the deputies were threatening Plaintiff, including telling him that if he
27 kept behaving as he was, they were going to do something worse to him. The deputies
28 drove Plaintiff to a deserted location where there was "not a soul" around, near an
- 6-
1 abandoned bridge or rail road tracks.

2 21. Once the deputies took Plaintiff to this remote location, they started to take
3 Plaintiff out of the car. Out of fear for his safety given the deputies' threats, Plaintiff
4 resisted in a non-forceful, non-violent manner by making his body stiff. The deputies
5 dragged Plaintiff out of the car and onto the ground. When he tried to get up they
6 jumped on top of him, drove their knees into his legs with the full weight of their bodies
7 over him, and twisted his arms forcibly.
1 The deputies also pushed Plaintiffs lmee
8 against the ground, causing him to bleed out. Plaintiff was also told by the deputies:
9 "This is going to end up on the six o'clock news" (or words to that effect). Plaintiff
1o understood the deputies' actions and statements to constitute a continued threat of
11 violence.
12 I 22. Plaintiff was then taken by the deputies to County USC Medical Center,
13 where he arrived on or about April 27, 2011. When Plaintiff was checked in at County
14 USC, one of the deputies looked at the mark on Plaintiffs leg that resulted from the
15 deputies shoving Plaintiffs lmee into the van, as described above. When the deputy
16 looked at the mark on Plaintiffs leg the deputy said to his fellow deputy that he "should
17 have just broken [Plaintiffs] leg."
18 23. At County USC, Plaintiff was alleged to have lunged at a young medical
19 student on the morning of April28, 2011. He was again arrested and taken to the Twin
20 Towers. Plaintiff was then charged with a crime.
21 24. At the Twin Towers, and with full knowledge of Plaintiff's mental illness
22 and suicidal state, Defendants nonetheless placed Plaintiff in an elevated cell in the
23 general population of the jail
24 25. On April 29, 2011 Plaintiff attempted to commit suicide for the first of two
25 times. Specifically, Plaintiff jumped from an elevated floor of the Twin Towers.
26 Plaintiff sustained a fracture to his right foot but survived the fall.
27 26. Plaintiff was arraigned on or about May 2, 2011.
28 27. Despite Defendants' lmowledge of Plaintiff's mental condition and suicidal
- 7-
1 tendencies, Defendants ultimately returned Plaintiff to the general population of Twin

2 Towers and, inexplicably, once again placed him on an elevated floor. At various
3 times, jail personnel also bullied and hounded Plaintiff with derisive and demeaning
4 references to his failed attempted suicide.
5 1
28. While he was in Defendants' custody at the Twin Towers, Defendants also
I
6 ' placed Plaintiff in an area of the jail !mown as "spitters and shitters," which on
7 information and belief is designed to house inmates who throw their feces and spit at
8 others. Defendants placed Plaintiff in "spitters and shitters" even though they knew
9 Plaintiff did not have a spitting problem and did not throw his feces. Prior to placing
10 Plaintiff in "spitters and shitters," and in front of Plaintiff, a deputy at Twin Towers
11 mocked Plaintiff, telling him he was "famous" at the Twin Towers. A deputy also told
12 another deputy "this is the guy I was telling you about," in reference to Plaintiff. The
13 conditions in "spitters and shitters" where Plaintiff was placed were inhumane and
14 deplorable. For example, the mattress, floor and walls in the cell were covered in feces.
15 29. At approximately 5 a.m. on August 30, 2011, Plaintiff once again
16 attempted to commit suicide, again by jumping from an elevated floor on which
17 Defendants had inexplicably placed him. However, this time, Plaintiff did not land on
18 his foot but instead landed on his head.
19 30. As a result of his failed suicide attempt, Plaintiff suffered severe physical
20 itDuries, including a spinal cord injury resulting in permanent disability. Medical
21 reports at the time revealed that Plaintiff suffered injuries that include, by way of
22 example only: a T9-Tl0 burst fracture, ASIA-A spinal cord injury, status post T6-T8
23 and Tl2-L2 PSF. He had a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and was unable to move
24 his bilateral lower extremities. He was insensate from the umbilicus down. He had a 4
25 em laceration on the vertex of his head and no rectal tone. A CT scan showed burst
26 fractures at T9-Tl 0, worse at Tl 0 with retropulsed fragments and near obliteration of
27 the central canal at T1 0-Tll. There was a focal kyphosis at T1 0-Tll and fractures of
28 the T9-T10 and L4 spinous processes. He had a non-displaced sternal fracture and
- 8-
1 fractures of the left 11th and 12th ribs and right posterior 1Oth ribs. And he had a
2 retroperitoneal hematoma anteriorly. In short, Plaintiff sustained severe and life-
3 altering injuries and will never walk again.
4 31. Furthermore, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, including but not
5 limited to allowing Plaintiff to be assaulted by Wes, deputies using excessive force
6 against Plaintiff, deputies bullying and mocking Plaintiff, and deputies placing Plaintiff
7 in the inhumane conditions of "spitters and shitters," Plaintiff suffered and continues to
s suffer severe emotional distress.
9 32. Plaintiff was eventually released from custody and all charges against him
1o were dismissed.
11
FACTUAL BACKGROUND RELATED TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
12
JAIL SYSTEM
13
A. Defendants Have Been On Notice Of The Inadequacies Of Their Policies,
14
Procedures, Supervision And Training Relating To Preventing Violence
15
Against Inmates For Years
16
33. At the time of the events at issue in this action, Defendants were on notice
17
of unconstitutional conditions and systemic problems in the County jails, including at
18
the Twin Towers, related to (a) inmate on inmate violence and (b) excessive force used
19
by deputies against inmates. Defendants received such notice by way of receiving
20
reports noting prior incidents of violence against inmates (both by other inmates and
21
excessive force by deputies), noting the culpable actions of subordinates in such
22
incidents, and noting the inadequacies of Defendants' policies, practices, procedures
23
supervision and training related to preventing violence against inmates (both by other
24
inmates and excessive force by deputies). Such notice included, but was not limited to,
25
notice regarding the inadequacies in policies, procedures, supervision and training
26 related to (i) avoiding placing mentally ill inmates in housing with inmates known to be
27 violent and (ii) preventing deputies from using excessive force. Despite being on such
28
notice, Defendants were (a) deliberately indifferent to the inadequacies in their policies,
- 9-
1 procedures, supervision and training relating to preventing inmate on inmate violence

2 and/or excessive force by deputies against inmates; and/or (b) acquiesced in the
3 unconstitutional conduct of deputies who were the subordinates of Sheriff Baca.
4 34. Examples of Defendants being on notice of unconstitutional conduct
5 related to violence against inmates in the Twin Towers and other County jails are set
6 forth in paragraphs 35 through 59 herein.
7 35. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") reported that "Inmates
8 who are mentally ill or housed in mental health housing," by the L.A. Sheriffs
9 Department, "are subject to an unacceptably high risk of physical abuse and other
I
10 mistreatment at the hands of other inmates and custodial staff Moreover, the Jail does
11 not adequately investigate allegations of abuse against its inmates." The DOJ "received
12 numerous reports from inmates and advocates regarding serious physical abuse of
13 inmates in mental health housing . . . including kicks, punches, beatings, and sexual
14 assaults. Although the Jail claims that it has discounted some of these claims ... the
15 investigation of these claims was inadequate and serious questions remain regarding the
16 extent of physical abuse of mentally ill inmates. We agree with Special Counsel
17 Merrick Bobb's fmding that in the Jail 'there is callous treatment [of inmates] at times,
18 ·a problem that LASD management knows about but has not acted sufficiently
19 aggressively to resolve."' Additionally, "[t]he Jail's failure to investigate promptly and
20 thoroughly allegations of abuse against mentally ill inmates, and its failure to take
21 appropriate action in response to incidents of abuse, enables the abuse of these inmates
22 to continue." The DOJ further determined that, "[t]he treatment received by one inmate
23 indicates that excessive use of force and physical mistreatment of inmates with mental
24 illnesses may be in part the result of inadequate training." Defendants, including
25 Sheriff Baca, were aware of this report. Sheriff Baca, though not yet Sheriff at the time
26 of the report, nonetheless was on the Sheriffs executive committee at the time, and thus
27 received and reviewed a copy of the DOl's report.
28
- 10-
1 36. On July 6, 2002, Los Angeles County jail inmate Ramon Gavira was
2 severely beaten by a female deputy and later was killed in his cell. Deputies and staff
3 testified that they were not investigated nor disciplined for lapses in supervision of Mr.
4 Gavira and allegations that Mr. Gavira had been physically abused by deputies.
5 Defendants were aware of this incident, and Sheriff Baca was personally advised of the
6 failure to investigate and no discipline being imposed.
7 37. On March 23, 2003, Sheriff Baca was made aware of failures as it relates
8 to inmate on inmate violence. He was informed of inmate on inmate violence and the
9 failure to provide reasonable security when COLA and LASD approved a settlement in
10 a civil action where Ahmad Burrell, Rory Fontanelle, and Aaron Cunningham were
11 attacked over a three day period, sustaining serious injuries. Although the deputies had
12 known that there was going to be inmate on inmate violence, the deputies failed to
13 provide reasonable security to Ahmad Bunell, who was attacked in the housing
14 dormitory and the attackers were able to stab him twenty-four (24) times, some causing
15 serious and permanent injury to his abdomen and head.
16 38. On October 21, 2003, inmate Ki Hong was killed by three inmates who
17 entered the dayroom where Hong was housed. Notice of numerous violations showing
18 I deputies failing to provide reasonable security and abandoning their duties, their lax
19 discipline and failure to supervise were given to Sheriff Baca by his in-house lawyers,
20 yet the inmate-on-inmate violence continued. This was the first of five inmate-on-
21 inmate killings that occmTed in the jail system over a six-month period.
22 39. On December 6, 2003, inmate Prendergast was beaten periodically over
23 . several hours from about 6:00p.m. to early next morning by two of his three cellmates.
24 Again, notice of numerous violations showing deputy failing to provide reasonable

25 security to the entire cell block, lax discipline and failure to supervise were presented to
26 , SheriffBaca.
27
28
- 11 -
1 40. On December 9, 2003, inmate Mario Alvarado was killed in a holding cell.
2 Deputies responsible for providing reasonable security failed to do so, and the imnates
3 who beat Alvarado had so much time they were able to conceal his dead body under
4 clothes and trash. Again, notice of numerous violations showing deputy failing to
5 provide reasonable security to the holding cell, lax discipline and failure to supervise
6 were presented to SheriffBaca.
7 41. On December 13, 2003, a deputy falsified the contents of a statement by a
8 pre-trial detainee, Jose Beas, so that the falsified statement recounted that Beas had
9 admitted to inappropriate touching of a minor. Beas was classified as an inmate who
10 should be kept away from the general prison population, and was given a wrist band
11 that identified him as such, but he was placed in a holding tank with general population
12 imnates. Beas was immediately beaten by the other imnates and suffered brain damage.
13 SheriffBaca was named as a defendant in that civil case and knew of the allegations of
14 failure to provide reasonable security to the holding cell, lax discipline and failure to
15 supervise and he approved the settlement.
16 42. On January 12, 2004, imnate Kristopher Faye was stabbed to death by
17 several inmates with jail-made knives. Faye was African American and the attackers
18 were Hispanic. Deputies responsible for keeping the cell gates in the housing module
19 closed allowed all the cell gates in the module to remain open which increased the
20 danger of violence and was in violation ofLASD policy. Numerous violations showing
21 errors in classification, placing highly dangerous imnates with histories of violence with
22 nonviolent imnates presenting low security risk, deputies failing to provide reasonable
23 security to the holding cell, lax discipline and failure to supervise were again presented
24 to Sheriff Baca in official reports.
25 43. On April20, 2004, imnate Raul Tinajero was killed in his cell in the jail by
26 inmate Santiago Pineda. Pineda had a history of prior misconduct in the jail. Tinajero
27 was to be a witness in a criminal case against Pineda. Due to the monitoring failures of
28 the deputies and inadequate procedures with regard to the escorting of inmates, Pineda
- 12-
1 was able to enter Tinajero's cell unchallenged by the deputies responsible for providing
2 reasonable security, kill Tinajero undetected, and remain in Tinajero's cell for five
3 hours undetected by deputies. Numerous violations showing errors in classification,
4 deputies failing to provide reasonable security to the housing cells, lax discipline and
5 failure to supervise were again presented to SheriffBaca in official reports.
6 44. On May 23 or 24, 2004, inmate Antonio Fernandez was killed by other
7 imnates with whom he was housed in a dormitory. The deputy that was assigned to
8 monitor the dormitory had abandoned her duties and left her post unattended, and the
9 post was vacant at the time during which the assault occurred. The failure to provide
10 reasonable security to the housing area, lax discipline and failure to supervise were
11 again presented to SheriffBaca.
I
12 45. Sheriff Baca received notice from the Special Counsel to the Los Angeles
13 County Sheriffs Department (Merrick Bobb ), in the 17th Semiatmual Report (February
14 2004) and the 18th Semiannual Report (August 2004) of increasing levels of imnate
15 violence in the jails. The report pointed out deficiencies in Sheriff Baca's system for
16 managing information relate to inmate violence.
17 46. In February 2005, SheriffBaca received notice from the Special Counsel to
18 the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, in the 19th Semiannual Report that his
19 deputies' conduct was costing county tax payers millions of dollars annually in
20 payments of civil judgments and settlements, in cases where the internal investigations
21 had found no wrong doing. In all, SheriffBaca was notified by his Special Counsel that
22 of twenty-nine (29) cases involving police misconduct that settled for $100,000 or more
23 over the preceding five years, only eight resulted in any type of discipline to the
24 involved officers or policy change in the Department.
25 47. On February 3, 2005, Special Counsel Merrick Bobb presented to Sheriff
26 Baca a finding of inmate abuse, contained in a report to the Los Angeles County Board
27 of Supervisors. The Special Counsel's report criticized the jails for "failing to prevent
28 dangerous inmates from being housed with lower-risk imnates .... "
- 13 -
1 48. On October 24, 2005, Chadwick Shane Cochran was booked for a
2 nonviolent misdemeanor. Due to mental health difficulties, Cochran was classified to be
3 placed in a mental health facility located within the jail. Due to enors by staff, his
4 protective housing was terminated and he was sent to general population on November
5 16, 2005, where he was beaten to death a few hours later that day. Deputies
6 compounded the error of removing Cochran from protective status and left a red color
7 identification card which led the attacking inmates to believe that he was a "snitch" or
8 "informant." The deputies responsible for the safety of inmates abandoned their post
9 and supervision of the locked day room in which 40 other inmates, some of whom were
10 classified as violent "high risk" accused murderers and gang members, and known
11 violent offenders. Cochran was screaming and many other inmates were yelling for
12 them to stop, but no deputy resumed their responsibility to provide reasonable security
13 until the inmates had grown tired of beating Cochran and hid his body under clothing
14 and food trays. The numerous enors in classification, deputies failing to provide
15 reasonable security to the day room housing cells, lax discipline and failure to supervise
16 were again presented to Sheriff Baca in official reports.
17 49. In April2010, Mr. Joshua Sather, a Sheriffs deputy working at the Twin
18 Towers resigned after only a few weeks on the job after his supervisor directed Sather
19 to beat a mentally ill inmate. Sather had graduated at the top of his recruit class from
20 the Sheriffs Academy, and was the sole Honor Recruit in his graduating class. He was
21 assigned to work at the County jail, as many of the rookies are assigned-a practice that
22 many experts have concluded contributes to the poor conditions for inmates at those
23 I facilities. Sather was directed to work on the sixth floor mental health ward of TTCF.
24 On March 22, 2010, Sather's supervisor told him, "[w]e're gonna go in and teach this
25 guy a lesson." Sather and other deputies then used force on a mentally ill inmate. Soon
26 afterwards, Sather, called his uncle, a veteran Sheriffs detective, crying and distraught,
27 and told him that he had been compelled to "beat up 'dings'," slang for the mentally
28 disabled. Rather than report the beating, those involved, including the supervisor,
l________________________________-~1~4_·______________________________
1 purposely covered up the attack. On information and belief, Baca was made aware of
2 the incident, which was widely reported in the media.
3 50. Also in April2010, another deputy, Ryan Lopez, told investigators that he
4 witnessed a mentally ill inmate being beaten by three sheriffs' deputies and that he later
5 met with other deputies to discuss how to cover it up. The inmate in question had told
6 jail staff that he suffered from hallucinations, was hearing voices, and had a history of
7 mental illness. The three deputies were subsequently convicted of assault charges. On
8 information and belief, Baca was made aware of the incident, which also was reported
9 in the press.
10 51. On information and belief, confidential memos dated in or around 2009
11 and reviewed by the Los Angeles -Times in or around October 2011 also show
12 Defendants had concluded that some confrontations between inmates and deputies were
13 triggered by deputies who thought inmates had acted disrespectfully to them-showing
14 "contempt of cop."
15 52. The Office of Independent Review ("OIR") 1 Eight Annual Report, dated
16 June 2010, examined an incident where an inmate was fatally assaulted by his cell mate
17 as a result of being mismatched with his cellmate.
18 The assault took place shortly after both inmates were placed together in the
19 acute mental housing floor of one of the Department's custody facilities ... The
20 incident highlighted the vulnerabilities in the Department's classification system
21 and potential safety risks when inmates are not suited to be cellmates. In the
22 aftermath of the incident, OIR examined whether there were ways the
23 Department could implement safeguards to "catch" the potential mismatching of
24 inmates. Subsequent revelations in this case, for instance, suggested that factors
25 such as age, in custody disciplinary history and mental stability may have
26 1
OIR periodically provides reports related to the Los Angeles County jail system. The reports,
including the ones described herein, are provided to Defendants, including Sheriff Baca. According to
27 its website, "OIR has full access to relevant documents, meetings, and personnel within LASD. It has a
close working relationship with LASD's Internal Affairs Bureau and Internal Criminal Investigations
28 Bureau and is able to participate in ongoing investigations."
- 15 -
1 indicated that the pairing would have been unsuitable ...

2
3 For instance, while in the Department's custody, the victim had no in-custody
4 disciplinary record. The suspect, on the other hand, was involved in three
5 separate fights ... Despite these documented incidents, there was no change in the
6 suspect's classification. In addition, it appears that the suspect's disciplinary
7 history was not considered when he was paired with the victim.
8 (Emphasis added).
9 53. In July 2010, Special Counsel Merrick J. Bobb issued his 29th Semiannual
10 Report on the LASD, &·awing attention to the same issue:
1
11 This report documents ongoing concerns about the safety and security of inmates
12 in the jails, particularly in Men's Central jail. Last month, our colleagues in the
13 Office of Independent Review detailed increases in suicides and highlighted a
14 disturbing case where one inmate murdered another in circumstances where the
15 LASD should never have housed the two individuals together in the same cell.
16 54. The ACLU's September 9, 2010 Interim Repmi on Conditions Inside Los
17 Angeles County Jail also detailed an incident in which a mentally ill inmate was
18 attacked by another prisoner:
19 Prisoner B had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the
20 community and was seeing a psychiatrist for treatment. During a previous jail
21 stay, staff had recognized that he had a mental illness and he was placed in
22 mental health housing in Tower One ... However, when he was booked into the
23 jail in early 2010, he was placed in a high security two-man cell in Tower Two,
24 with a cellmate who previously been convicted of murder. Prisoner B was found
25 dead in his cell on March 4, 20 I 0, apparently murdered by this cell mate.
26 55. The ACLU's September 9, 2010 report also noted it had "continued to
27 receive reports that the [LASD] is indifferent to [its] duty to protect prisoners from
28 violence, especially regarding housing assignments." (Emphasis added).
I . 16 _
1 56. The September 9, 2010 ACLU report further reported deputies

2 "encouraging prisoners to beat up other prisoners to keep them in line," including
3 inmates who "regulate" other inmates to beat up mentally ill inmates. The report went
4 on to note that "when prisoners and the ACLU have filed complaints with the Sheriffs
5 Department regarding excessive force and violence against prisoners, and dereliction of
6 duty by deputies, the Department's response has been a flat denial, an assumption that
7 deputies are credible and the routine skepticism about prisoners' credibility."
8 57. The September 9, 2010 ACLU report further noted that "prisoners with
9 mental illness are especially vulnerable to physical and psychological abuse from
1o deputies and other prisoners."
11 58. In October 2011, SheriffBaca told the Los Angeles Times that he deserved
12 to have his "butt whipped" for allowing violence in the jails to fester.
13 59. On September 28, 2012, a blue ribbon panel, the Citizens' Commission on
14 Jail Violence, headed by Justice Carlos Moreno, Judges Lourdes Baird and Dick
15 Tevrizian, and others, issued a scathing report on conditions in the jails administered by
16 Defendants. The panel report noted that Defendants' policies "have enabled inmates to
17 use force against other inmates." Deputies went as far, the panel noted, as "opening the
18 doors to several cells at once," so that prisoners could assault each other while the
19 deputies watched. The panel also reported that deputies used humiliation as a technique
20 to harass the inmates, that the department lacked a comprehensive policy to regulate the
21 use of force, and that "[t]he Department condoned a deputy-versus-inmate culture" in
22 which a "code of silence" stymied the discovery and rectification of abuse. The report
23 concluded that "[t]he Department's cyclical hiring has resulted in the hiring of lesser
24 qualified deputies," and that "Department training for Custody is far below both
25 industry best practices and training standards in other corrections systems."
26 60. Sheriff Baca knew or reasonably could and should have known the
27 ongoing constitutional violations as set forth in paragraphs 35 through 59, including the
28 failure to provide reasonable security at the jail, failure to adopt policies and procedures
- 17-
1 to prevent inmate on inmate violence, failure to monitor inmates, lax or no supervision

2 by his subordinate supervisors, use of excessive force on inmates, failure to investigate
3 incidents involving inmate on inmate violence, failure to protect inmates, failure to
4 implement indicated policies and procedures, and of the failure to adequately train jail
5 personnel to prevent inmate on inmate violence, yet he failed to act and/or condoned,
6 acquiesced or ratified the foregoing unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates.
7 61. Defendants failed to act to prevent the ongoing constitutional violations set
8 forth in paragraphs 35 through 59 and were deliberately indifferent in failing to act,
9 and/or condoned and/or ratified a custom, practice or policy of ongoing misconduct by
10 Twin Towers' personnel.
11 B. Defendants Have Been On Notice For Years Regarding The Inadequacies Of
12 Their Policies, Procedures And Training Relating To The Mentally Ill,
13 Including Inadequacies In Handling Mentallv Ill Inmates Presenting A Risk
14 Of Suicide
15 62. At the time of the events at issue in this action, Defendants were on notice
16 of unconstitutional conditions and systemic problems in the County jails, including at
17 the Twin Towers, related to the diagnosis, treatment, handling and protection of
18 mentally ill inmates and suicidal inmates. While mentally ill imnates are not necessary
19 suicidal, and vice versa, Defendants were aware at all relevant times that mentally ill
20 inmates pose a higher risk of suicide, and were aware during Plaintiff's detention that
21 Plaintiff was both mentally ill and suicidal.
22 63. Defendants received such notice of the unconstitutional conditions and
23 systemic problems in the Connty jails, including at the Twin Towers, related to the
24 diagnosis, treatment, handling and protection of mentally ill inmates and suicidal
25 inmates by way of receiving reports noting the failure to properly diagnose, treat,
26 handle and protect mentally ill inmates and suicidal inmates, noting the culpable actions
27 of subordinates in such situations, and noting the inadequacies of Defendants' policies,
28 practices, procedures, supervision and training related to adequately diagnosing,
- 18 -
1 treating, handling and protecting mentally ill inmates and suicidal inmates. Such notice
2 included, but was not limited to, receiving reports regarding consistently high suicide
3 attempt rates in the County jail system and at Twin Towers, reports regarding prior
4 · failures to adequately treat the mentally ill and suicidal, and repotis regarding the
5 inadequacies in policies, procedures, supervision and training related to: (i) avoiding
6 placing suicidal inmates in housing conducive to committing suicide (including on
7 elevated floors); (ii) providing mentally ill inmates with adequate medical treatment to
8 avoid the mentally ill attempting suicide; (iii) providing adequate supervision of
9 inmates exhibiting suicidal tendencies; (iv) recognizing suicidal tendencies of inmates;
10 (v) housing mentally ill inmates in human confmement; and (vi) improper de-
ll classifications of mentally ill inmates resulting in suicide attempts.
12 64. Examples of Defendants being on the aforementioned notice of
13 unconstitutional conduct related to mentally ill inmates and suicidal inmates are set
14 forth in paragraphs 65 through 93 herein.
15 65. The DOJ's 1997 report, described above, noted various inadequacies in
16 Defendants' treatment of the mentally ill, and concluded, in part, that "[c]linical
17 response to suicidal imnates is delayed, on occasion with tragic results, and suicidal
18 inmates are placed in housing that permits them to act on their suicidal ideation."
191 (Emphasis added).
20 66. On December 19, 2002, Defendant County of Los Angeles and the DOJ
21 entered into a Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Mental Health Services at the Los
22 Angeles County Jail ("MOA") "to avoid potential litigation concerning the mental
23 health services at the Jail." Sheriff Baca was a signatory to the MOA. The MOA
24 provides Sheriff Baca is a person "responsible for overseeing and/or providing mental
25 health services to the inmates at the Jail."
26 67. The MOA set fmih that the DOJ's review of the Los Angeles County jails
27 identified numerous "constitutional deficiencies with regard to mental health care,
28 including inadequate (a) intake screening and evaluation, (2) diagnosis, (3) referral to
- 19-
1 mental health professionals, (4) treatment plans, (5) administration of medications, (6)
2 suicide prevention, (7) tracking and medical record keeping, (8) staffing, (9)
3 communication, and (10) quality assurance." (Emphasis added). The MOA further
4 noted the DOJ had identified that the County had "mistreated and abused mentally ill
5 inmates, including using excessive force and improper restraint practices."
6 68. The MOA included provisions designed to "ensure that reasonable and
7 adequate mental health care services are provided at the Jail." Those included
8 provisions related to intake, evaluation, referrals, treatment, medication administration,
9 environmental conditions, suicide prevention, medical records and communication,
1o staffing and training, quality assurance, and abuse and mistreatment.
11 69. As it relates to suicide prevention in particular, the MOA recognized that
12 mentally ill inmates are a suicide risk and provided, among other things, that
13 Defendants ensure that all inmates "observed to be potentially suicidal receive
14 appropriate crises intervention," "including placement in a safe setting and evaluations
15 in a timely manner." (Emphasis added). However, Defendants failed to adequately
16 implement those provisions.
17 70. In March 2003, the DOJ sent to County Counsel letter concluding the
18 Sheriffs Department was not in compliance with the MOA's requirement that Sheriffs
19 Department "provide mandatory orientation and continuing competency-based training
20 for correctional staff in the identification and custodial care of mentally ill inmates
21 including, but not necessarily limited to (a) interpreting or responding to bizarre or
22 aberrant behaviors, (b) recognizing and responding to indications of suicidal thoughts,
23 (c) proper suicide observation, (d) recognizing common side effects of psychotropic
24 medications, (e) professional and humane treatment of mentally ill inmates, and (f)
25 response to mental health crises including suicide intervention and cell extractions."
26 (Emphasis added).
27 71. In October 2002, the OIR issued its First Annual Report, which described
28 three suicides. In the first case, the OIR found that a "policy requiring higher standard
-20-
1 of care was not in effect at time of incident." In the second case, a specially trained
2 deputy "delayed in responding to call for assistance with suicidal man" and "Instructed
3 responding Deputies to take man to jail." In the third case, the responding deputy
4 training officer "failed to ensure adequate care" of inmate who had made suicide threat.
5 72. In October 2005, the OIR's Fourth Annual Report noted 23 attempted
6 suicides and one completed suicide in 2005. The report also acknowledged a "4.5
7 suicides per annum average in recent years."
8 73. In December 2007, the OIR issued its Sixth Annual Report, which
9 included an in-depth analysis of the 2002 case of Ramon Camarillo Gavira. His
10 disputed suicide gave rise to a lawsuit against the LASD. The OIR also examined two
11 1
other suicides, including one in which "OIR believed that significant questions
I
12 remained unaddressed," including, "Was the inmate appropriately screened and housed
13 for psychological problems?" (Emphasis added.)
14 74. In the Gavira lawsuit, Gavira's family alleged and put Defendants on
15 notice that that the Sheriff's Department had failed to "provide mental/medical
16 intervention and attention to injured, ill, or potentially suicidal arrestee[s] or inmates;"
17 to periodically "monitor an inmate's serious mental/medical condition and suicidal
18 ' prevention which may result in serious injury or loss of life;" "monitor the quality of
19 mental/medical care, attention and treatment provided to ill inmates and arrestees"; or
20 "monitor the adequacy of mental/medical custodial staffing to ensure adequacy of
21 medical care, treatment, and attention rendered to ill inmates and arrestee[s]." County
22 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 8, 11. Merrick Bobb, the
23 Special Counsel to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, criticized the Department's
24 handling of the Gavira case. Sheriff Baca was deposed in the Gavira case, and he
25 brushed aside the Special Counsel's criticisms when he was asked about them during
26 his deposition. "He has no background for jail operations," Sheriff Baca derided. "I
27 thinl< Mr. Bobb is fishing in deep water." Id. The Special Counsel expressed his
28 frustration with the Sheriffs dismissive attitude. "I can make all the recommendations I
. 21 -
1 want, but if the sheriff doesn't implement them, it doesn't matter."

2 75. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a report in June 2008 authored
3 by Dr. Terry Kupers, an expert on mental illness in penitentiary institutions. The
4 Kupers report concluded: "at the Los Angeles County Jail the claims by prisoners [of
5 abuse by deputies] are so widespread, and the reports of abuse so consistent among
6 multiple reporters, that is seems very likely there is an unacceptably high incidence of
7 custodial abuse. Multiple prisoners have told me about abuse they have undergone or
8 witnessed, and most say it is disproportionately directed at prisoners with serious
9 mental illness." Dr. Kupers reported that this situation was "made worse by
10 inappropriate undiagnosing and consignment of prisoners suffering from serious mental
11 illness to general population housing." The report found that "there seems to be very
12 little mental health training for most other officers, and given the fact that officers work
13 over-time in most assignments, this means that prisoners with mental illness outside of
14 Tower 1 are often guarded by officers with little or no training in mental health."
15 (emphasis added) Dr. Kupers reported "disturbing evidence of custodial abuse of
16 prisoners with serious mental illness," and "crowding and idleness at every level[]
17 further exacerbate the problems."
18 76. The Kupers report recommended a variety of remedial measures, including
19 that "[a]ll officers ... be required to undergo intensive training in working with
20 prisoners with mental illness" and that custodial personnel "halt custodial abuse" by
21 adopting "zero tolerance from the top, education for prisoners about their rights and the
22 grievance process, training and support to encourage staff to report abuse by other staff,
23 a confidential complaint system that fosters prisoner trust and action, and prompt and
24 thorough investigation with appropriate consequences for offending staff."
25 77. The Kupers report also made clear that placing a mentally ill prisoner in
26 the general population with medication only falls short of the level of mental health care
27 due to inmates with mental illnesses: "Considering the large proportion of jail prisoners
28 with significant and serious mental illness, relatively few prisoners in the Los Angeles
-22-
1 County Jail are receiving mental health treatment. By my calculations, only 11.8% of
2 male prisoners in the Los Angeles County Jail are on the mental health caseload ... It is
3 important to note that, of the 2,088 individuals reported on the mental health caseload,
4 at least 350 are receiving only medications while being subjected to severe crowding or
5 isolation and receiving no mental health programming~this is far .fi'om adequate
6 mental health treatment" (emphasis added).
7 78. According to the information m vanous OIR reports provided to
8 Defendants, from 2006 through 2010, there were twenty-five successful suicides in the
9 Los Angeles County jails. Those included a well-publicized incident in October 2008,
10 when Johnny Lee Jackson, a rapper-producer known as "Johnny J," committed suicide
11 by jumping off an upper tier of the Twin Towers.
12 79. The ACLU's Annual Report on Conditions Inside Los Angeles County
13 Jail, 2008-2009, documented some ofLASD's flawed practices with respect to housing
14 assignments of the mentally ill. According to the Report, mentally ill patients are
15 sometimes placed in "the hole" as a fom1 of punishment. The Report states that,
16 "Untrained deputies naturally respond to these behaviors [acting out due to mental
17 illness] by disciplining prisoners," mistaking the behaviors of the mentally ill for
18 insubordination or disobedience.
19 80. Further, according to the 2008-2009 ACLU Report, the facilities in which
20 mentally ill inmates are placed are filthy and unsanitary. The Report documented the
21 presence of "blood and feces on the walls in cells in mental health housing;" "One
22 prisoner remembered being placed in a cell that obviously had not been cleaned before
23 his arrival, as he noted there were blood and feces on the walls;" "many dormitories
24 reek of stale urine and feces;" "[T]here were feces and blood on the walls. It seemed
25 like it was 1492." The Report warned that isolation in such bleak conditions was
26 harmful: "this fom1 of punishment is particularly dangerous to people with mental
27 illness because the isolation can lead to mental health deterioration and even suicide
28 attempts" (emphasis added).
"23 "
81. In April 2009 the OIR issued its Seventh Annual Report which reported an
2 instance of an inmate who had reported hearing voices who committed suicide after
3 being assaulted by another inmate. "He had pre-existing mental health issues and,
4 while in jail, had been in and out of the care of the Department of Mental Health.
5 · Months before his death, he was housed in the jail's mental health treatment module,
6 but had been de-classified." The OIR noted that, "There were some issues with the
7 inmate's movement in between facilities and questions about whether he had always
8 been housed appropriately, given his troubled history." Elsewhere, the report urged
9 Defendants to pay attention to attempted suicides by inmates: "An attempted suicide
1o can reveal the same issues in inmate care, screening, and security measures as a
11 completed one, and warrants the same type of scrutiny,"
12 82. In June 2010, the OIR issued its Eight Annual Report, which examined
13 i several individual cases of inmate suicides. In one case noted in the report "the inmate
14 had attempted suicide approximately five months before his eventual completed suicide
15 I' and had spent some time in custody under the supervision of Department of Mental
16 Health personnel. However, the inmate was declassified shortly after his attempted
17 suicide and remained in custody without any further outward indication that he was
18 suffering from mental health problems." The OIR fonnd that, 'This suicide ... revealed
19 weaknesses in the processing and follow-up mental health care of inmates once
20 classified as suicidal" (emphasis added). The OIR recalled that, "we have in the past
21 recommended that the Depmiment work with DMH to find some way to address the
22 treatment and care of inmates declassified from mental health housing and will
23 continue to press this issue" (emphasis added).
24 83. The same June 2010 OIR Eighth Annual Report described another incident
25 in which an inmate who told custody staff that he was thinking of killing himself did
26 not receive follow-up attention by the Jail Mental Health Evaluation Teams before the
27 inmate killed himself. The OIR warned that, "the breakdown in communication
28 systems in this case is symptomatic of the ongoing need for the LASD and DMH to fmd
-24-
1 creative ways to improve and streamline their working relationship" (emphasis added).
2 84. Another case cited in the June 2010 OIR Eight Annual Report involved a
3 suicide at a patrol station lock-up. "The arrestee/inmate in this case had been a DMH
4 patient with a history of suicide attempts during a prior incarceration," the report noted.
5 "Because the inmate did not disclose upon booking any mental health issues, and
6 showed no obvious indications of a need for mental health care, the inmate was not
7 identified as someone who presented a heightened risk of suicide." As ofthe date of the
8 report, the LASD had been "unable to reach a resolution" with the Depmtment of
9 Mental Health to close the information gap identified in the incident. Although the case
10 / involved a suicide at a lock-up and not TTCF, the incident reflects the insufficiency of
11 the LASD' s response to inadequate conditions for the mentally ill.
12 85. The June 2010 OIR report also put Defendants on notice that, "While it is
13 true that inmates continue to be very creative in fmding ways to end their lives, it is the
14 responsibility of the Department to react to and learn from each suicide and continue to
15 find ways to reduce the likelihood of a successful subsequent suicide."
16 86. A September 9, 2010 report from the ACLU noted an "inevitable
17 consequence of the inadequate mental health treatment [in County jails] is suicides and
18 suicide attempts." It went on to state the ACLU's "review of jail suicides for the first
19 half of 2010 indicate the jail staff are not sufficiently alert to circumstances that pose a
20 high risk of suicide" and that "the jail does not have a routine system of mental health
21 follow-up for prisoners who pose a suicide risk, such as those who have been
22 declassified, or are returning from sentencing."
23 87. In a rep01t provided to SheriffBaca in July 2010, the OIR reported that, in
24 the first half of 2010 alone, there were 76 unsuccessful suicide attempts in the County
25 jail system. The report also pointed out that over a third of all the attempted suicides in
26 all county jails were attempts at the Twin Towers jail in particular, which, according to
27 the report, was "not surprising, considering that inmates who are receiving mental
28 health treatment are housed there."
- 25-
SECOI\'D AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 88. In July 2011, the OIR issued its Ninth Annual Report in which it reported
2 that in 2010, there were 174 attempted but "unsuccessful" suicide attempts, in addition
3 to 4 "successful" suicides.
4 89. The OIR's July 2011 report, included a case wherein, with the involvement
5 of the Mexican Consulate, the decedent's family raised concerns "that the inmate had
6 not been given proper emergency medical aid" after one failed suicide attempt.
7 "Approximately nine months after being incarcerated, the inmate was discovered alive
8 but lying on the floor of his cell with a telephone cord tied around his neck." The
9 inmate stated that he wanted to kill himself because his wife was having an affair.
1o "After five days of monitoring the inmate, he was re-evaluated and declassified from his
11 suicidal status." Five months later, the prisoner carried out a second suicide attempt,
12 this time killing himself. The OIR concluded:
13 Although OIR understands policy requires mental health personnel to follow up
14 with declassified inmates within a week of the declassification decision, OIR
15 continues to recommend that the Depatiment work with DMH to find additional
16 ways to ensure that inmates who have expressed suicidal ideation continue to
17 receive special attention while in custody even when it appears the mental health
18 crisis is behind the irunate. Clearly, one who has seriously attempted suicide
19 presents a greater risk offuture suicide attempts. After the inmate's completed
20 suicide, investigators learned from one of the inmate's family members that he
21 had a history of "several other suicide attempts." (Emphasis added.)
22 90. The 2012 Citizens' Commission Report referenced above further noted
23 that Defendants' training related to handling mentally ill inmates is insufficient. The
24 Report states:
25 There is further uniform agreement among deputies, Department leaders, and
26 experts that special training in dealing with mentally ill inmates is essential. The
27 Department does not, however, provide sufficient training in this area. Currently
28 deputies receive the following training relating to mental illness: two hours in the
- 26-
1 Academy regarding mental illness generally but not specific to Custody or

2 inmates; four hours of training on mental illness and inmates during the two
3 weeks of Custody Division specific training, and two hours of training every year
4 of their assignment to the Custody Division as part of their 24 hours of ongoing
5 education. This Custody Division training on mental illness was instituted in July
6 2010 as part of a directive to enhance mental illness training. These efforts are an
7 improvement, but still insufficient.
8 The foregoing minimal training related to mental illness was and is insufficient to
9 properly diagnose and treat mentally ill inmates. The insufficiency in training includes
10 insufficient training to properly recognize and respond to indications of suicidal
11 thoughts, to respond to prior suicide attempts, to properly observe the suicidal, to
12 properly engage in suicide intervention and prevention, and to follow up with inmates
13 after they are declassified from psychiatric observation and returned to the general
14 population, all problems recognized at least as far back as the MOA but never
15 adequately addressed.
16 91. The OIR's Tenth Annual Report, was issued in September 2012. The
17 report reiterated the same recommendations that the OIR and other groups had been
18 making for years:
19 Inmates who have difficulty coping with jail conditions because of mental illness
20 should be identified and receive the treatment they need to maintain functionality.
21 Systems should prevent inmates with a history of mental illness from finding
22 their way into the general population where they can create a risk factor for
23 themselves, deputies, and other inmates.
24 92. In or about January 2012, Sheriff Baca presented the Board of Supervisors
25 a Status Report by Special Counsel Merrick J. Bobb, which found that mental illness
26 preparedness was especially poor at night. Bobb reported a lack of available mental
27 health resources after 4 p.m. "The Department currently deploys," the Status Report
28 said, "a Jail Mental Evaluation Team (JMET) of seven deputies and one sergeant (5
-27-
1 deputies assigned to south facilities and 2 assigned to the north facilities) ... Budget
2 restraints have restricted the availability of these specialized deputies and clinicians
3 during the evening and early morning hours." The report noted that deputies from other
4 assignments were filling in as JMET deputies in an ad hoc attempt to address the
5 shortfall. The report recognized that the Department still needs to have six more JMET
6 deputies and six additional social workers to address the need for these specialists,
7 which it deemed critical to have: "In the Department's effmis to impact violence in the
8 jails, it is critical to have deputies with specialized training to deal with mentally ill
9 inmates."
10 93. On September 5, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice infmmed the LASD
11 that it was opening a new civil investigation of the LASD. In a letter signed by U.S.
12 Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr., the DOJ recalled that, "In September 1997, the Department
13 found that conditions related to mental health care violated the federal rights of
14 prisoners" and that "significant problems remain." Among these problems, the DOJ
15 highlighted in relevant part that the "capacity for inpatient mental health care remains
16 insufficient."
17 94. Sheriff Baca !mew or reasonably could and should have known the
18 ongoing constitutional violations as set forth in paragraphs 65 through 93, including but
19 not limited to the failure to adopt adequate policies, procedures, supervision, staffmg
20 and training as it relates to placing the mentally ill and suicidal in safe and appropriate
21 housing; handling suicide risks and indications of suicide; properly observing,
22 managing, treating and monitoring the mentally ill and suicidal; engaging in suicide
23 intervention, prevention and follow-up, and/or communicating suicide risks to medical
24 professionals; the deficiencies in treatment, handling and monitoring of the mentally ill
25 which had led to prior attempted suicides; the placement of suicidal inmates in housing
26 that permits them to act on their suicidal intentions, including placement on an elevated
27 floor, which had caused prior incidents of attempted suicide; the placement of mentally
28 ill and suicidal inmates in general population had led to prior attempted suicides; and of
- 28-
1 the consistent pattern of attempted suicides in County jails and at the Twin Towers,
2 including by jumping from an elevated floor, yet Sheriff Baca failed to act and/or
3 condoned, acquiesced or ratified the foregoing unconstitutional conduct of his
4 subordinates.
5 95. Defendants failed to act to prevent the ongoing constitutional violations set
6 forth in paragraphs 65 through 93 and were deliberately indifferent in failing to act,
7 and/or condoned and/or ratified a custom, practice or policy of ongoing misconduct by
8 Twin Towers' personnel.
9
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 . 96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
13 through 95 of this Complaint, and incorporates the same herein by reference.
14 97. Plaintiff Was Deprived of His Constitutional Rights: Based on the facts
15 set forth above in paragraphs 13 through 32, Plaintiff was deprived of his constitutional
16 due process rights under the United States Constitution, including under the Fourteenth
17 Amendment, while he was in Defendants' custody. Those rights include, but are not
18 necessarily limited to:
19 a. Plaintiffs right to have Twin Towers' personnel not be deliberately
20 indifferent to his serious medical needs, including mental health needs,
21 which was violated, at a minimum, because Twin Towers' personnel knew
22 there was a risk to Plaintiffs safety and medical needs if they (a) housed
23 him on an elevated floor; (b) declassified him or housed him in general
24 population,; and/or (c) did not properly monitor Plaintiff given his suicidal
25 state, but nonetheless Twin Towers' personnel did so with deliberate
26 indifference to the risks.
27 b. Plaintiffs right to have reasonable measures taken to ensure his
28 safety, which was violated, at a minimum, because Twin Towers'
-29-
1 personnel (a) purposefully placed Plaintiff in a cell with a violent inmate

2 !mown to jail personnel to have attacked other prisoners in the past in order
3 to "teach Plaintiff a lesson;" (b) housed Plaintiff on an elevated floor,
4 and/or (c) housed Plaintiff in general population, all of which were done
5 with deliberate indifference to the risks to Plaintiffs safety;
6 c. Plaintiffs right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force, which
7 was violated, at a minimum, by Twin Towers' personnel shoving and using
8 unnecessary and excessive force and threats against Plaintiff as set forth in
9 paragraphs 18 through 21 above;
10 d. Plaintiffs right to be fi·ee from punishment, which was violated, at a
11 minimum, by Twin Towers' personnel (a) ridiculing Plaintiff because of
12 his failed suicide attempt; (b) placing Plaintiff in a cell with an inmate
13 known to have attacked other imnates in the past, with intent and
14 knowledge that Plaintiff would be attacked; and/or (c) placing Plaintiff in
15 "spitters and shitters;" each of which caused and continues to cause
16 Plaintiff severe emotional harm;
17 e. Plaintiffs right not to be denied humane conditions of confinement,
18 by Twin Towers' personnel (a) placing Plaintiff in "spitters and shitters;"
19 and/or (b) placing Plaintiff in a cell with a violent inmate !mown to
20 Defendants to have attacked other inmates in the past, with intent and
21 knowledge that Plaintiff would be attacked.
22 98. Defendants Were Deliberately Indifferent To Plaintiff's Constitutional
23 Rights:
24 a. Defendants were deliberately indifferent, both objectively and
25 subjectively, to Plaintiffs serious medical needs, including mental health
26 needs, in that:
27 1. Defendants were on notice, at a minimrun:
28 1. That placing suicidal inmates in housing that permits
- 30-
1 them to act on their suicidal intentions, including on an

2 elevated floor, had caused prior incidents of attempted
3 suicide and increases the risk of attempted suicides (see,
4 e.g., ~~ 65, 69, 73, 78, 82);
5 2. That housing mentally ill and suicidal inmates Ill
6 general population (including after Improper

7 declassifications) had led to prior attempted suicides
8 and increased the risk of suicide attempts (see, e.g., ~~
9 65, 69, 73, 77, 79-82, 86, 89, 91);

10 3. Of inadequacies in Defendants' policies, procedures,
11 supervision, staffing and training as it relates to placing
12 the mentally ill and suicidal in safe and appropriate
13 housing; handling suicide risks and indications of
14 suicide; properly observing, managing, treating and
15 monitoring the mentally ill and suicidal; engaging in
16 suicide intervention and prevention, and/or
17 communicating suicide risks to medical professionals
18 (see, e.g., ~~ 65-93);
19 4. That deficiencies in treatment, handling and monitoring
20 of the mentally ill and suicidal, including improper
21 declassifications, had led to prior attempted suicides
22 (see, e.g., ~~ 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 82, 86, 89,
23 90, 92); and
24 5. Of a consistent pattern of attempted suicides in County
25 jails and at the Twin Towers, including by jumping
26 from an elevated floor (see, e.g., ~~ 71-74, 78, 80-89);
27 and
28 11. Even though it was obvious to Defendants and to a reasonable
- 31 -
I person that a failure to act would likely lead to ftniher

2 constitutional violations, Defendants failed to put in place
3 adequate policies, procedures, supervision and training to prevent
4 violations of such right and/or Defendants acquiesced in the
5 unconstitutional conduct of SheriffBaca's subordinates.
6 b. Defendants were deliberately indifferent, both objectively and
7 subjectively, to Plaintiffs right to have reasonable measures taken to
8 ensure his safety (from other inmates and from himself), in that:
9 1. Defendants were on notice, at a minimum:
10 1. Of a persistent pattern of past inmate on inmate
11 violence, including violence resulting from not pairing
12 cellmates appropriately (see, e.g., 'ii'ii 35, 37-45, 47-48,
13 52-57, 59);
14 2. That placing suicidal inmates in housing that permits
15 them to act on their suicidal intentions, including on an
16 elevated floor, had led to prior attempted suicides and
17 increases the risk that an inmate will harm himself by
18 attempting suicide (see, e.g., "1!1! 65, 69, 73, 78, 82);
19 and/or
20 3. That housing mentally ill and suicidal inmates m
21 general population (including after tmproper
22 declassifications) had led to prior attempted suicides
23 and increases the risk that an inmate will harm himself
24 by attempting suicide attempt (see, e.g., 'ii'ii 65, 69, 73,
25 77, 79-82, 86, 89, 91);
27 staffing, supervision and training as it relates to
28 preventing inmate on inmate violence, including as it
-32-
1 relates to taking steps to pair cellmates appropriately

2 (see, e.g., 'j\"1!35, 37-45, 47-48, 52-57, 59);
4 staffing, supervision and training as it relates to
5 preventing self-inflicted imnate hann, including the
6 inadequacies in Defendants' policies, procedures,
7 supervision and training related to placing the mentally
8 ill and suicidal in safe and appropriate housing;
9 properly classifYing mentally ill and suicidal inmates;
10 handling suicide risks and indications of suicide;
11 properly observing, managing, treating and monitoring
12 the mentally ill and suicidal; engaging in suicide
13 intervention and prevention, and/or communicating
14 suicide risks to medical professionals (see, e.g., 'j!'j! 65-
15 93); and
16 n. Even though it was obvious to Defendants and to a reasonable
17 person that a failure to act would likely lead to further
22 c. Defendants were deliberately indifferent, both objectively and
23 subjectively, to Plaintiff's right to be free from gratuitous and excessive
24 force, in that:
25 1. Defendants were on notice of, at a minimum, a persistent pattern
26 of deputy on inmate violence in the County jails, including at the
27 Twin Towers (see, e.g., 'j!'j!, 35-36,45-46,49-51, 57, 59); and
28 11. With knowledge that it would likely lead to further constitutional
- 33 -
violations, Defendants failed to put in place adequate policies,

procedures, supervision and training to prevent violations of such
3 right and/or acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of Sheriff
4 Baca's subordinates.
5 d. Defendants were deliberately indifferent, both objectively and
6 subjectively, to Plaintiff's right to be free from punishment, in that:
7 1. Defendants were on notice of, at a minimum,
8 1. A persistent pattern of deputies mistreating inmates in the
9 County jails, including at the Twin Towers (see, e.g., ~~ ,
10 35-36, 45-46, 49-51, 57, 59);
11 2. Past instances of deputies enabling or encouraging inmates
12 to commit violence against other inmates, including by
13 pairing non-violent inmates including mentally ill inmates
14 with lmown violent inmates (see, e.g., ~1 35, 37-45, 47-48,
15 52-57, 59);
16 3. That the mentally ill are often placed in inhumane
17 conditions of confinement as a form of punishment (see,~~
18 79-80); and
25 e. Defendants were deliberately indifferent, both objectively and
26 subjectively, to Plaintiff's right not to be denied humane conditions of
27 confinement in that:
28 1. Defendants were on notice of, at a minimum,
- 34-
I 1. That the mentally ill are often placed in inhumane

2 conditions of confinement, including in housing with feces
3 on the floor and wall (see,~~ 79-80); and
4 2. Of past instances of iumate on inmate violence occurring
5 as a result of pairing non-violent inmates including
6 mentally ill inmates with !mown violent inmates, and a
7 lack of policies, procedures, training and supervision
8 related to pairing of inmates (see, e.g., ~~52-54, 57);
]3, violations of such right and/or Defendants acquiesced in the
15 99. Defendants' Deliberate Indifference Caused Violations Of Plaintiff's
16 Constitutional Rights And Caused Plaintiff Harm: Defendants' acts, policies,
17 customs and/or omissions were the cause of and driving force behind the violations of
18 Plaintiffs constitutional rights as set forth herein. For example, had Defendants not
19 acted with the deliberate indifference set forth in paragraph 98 (including, but not
20 limited to (i) turning a blind eye and acquiescing in prior unconstitutional conduct
21 known to them and (ii) not adopting adequate policies, procedures, supervision, staffing
22 and training to address obvious likely future constitutional violations as set fmih in that
23 paragraph), Plaintiff (a) would not have been placed in a cell with a !mown violent
24 inmate who proceeded to assault Plaintiff; (b) Plaintiff as an inmate !mown to be
25 suicidal would not have been placed on an elevated floor prior to his first suicide
26 attempt; (c) Plaintiff as an iumate !mown to be suicidal and to have already tried to
27 commit suicide by jumping from an elevated floor would not have inexcusably been
28 housed on an elevated floor again and would have been properly monitored and givne
- 35-
1 proper medical treatment ; (d) Plaintiff would not have been the victim of excessive
2 force and threats of violence from deputies; (e) Plaintiff would not have been the victim
3 of punishment in the form of ridicule by inmates about his prior suicide attempt; (f)
4 Plaintiff as a mentally ill and suicidal inmate would not have been declassified and
5 housed in the general population; (h) Plaintiff would not have been temporarily housed
6 in "spitters and shitters;" and/or (i) Plaintiff would not have been denied appropriate
7 and necessary medical care.
8 100. Plaintiff Suffered Emotional And Physical Injury As A Result Of
9 Defendants' Wrongful Conduct: Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of Defendants'
10 violations of his constitutional rights, including severe emotional distress and severe
11 physical injury, including paraplegia. The exact amount of Plaintiffs damages will be
12 subject to proof at trial.
13 101. As to Defendant Baca and the DOE defendants, they are liable in their
14 personal capacity for their participation in the deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional
15 rights, including by setting in motion acts which caused others to inflict constitutional
16 injury. Said Defendants' own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or
17 control of their subordinates caused the constitutional tnjury, said Defendants
18 acquiesced in the constitutional deprivations of Plaintiff and/or said Defendants'
\
19 conduct showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. DOE
20 Defendants, are alternatively liable in their official capacity because a policy or custom
21 or a one time decision by all or one ofthem played a part in the violations of Plaintiffs
22 constitutional rights.
23 102. The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants were committed by
24 each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to hann, injure, vex,
25 harass and oppress Plaintiff with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights and by
26 reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from all Defendants
27 other than County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, according to
28 proof at the time of trial.
-36-
1
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(Cal. Civil Code §52-1)
3 (Against Sheriff Baca and Does 1-50)
4 103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
6 Defendants, as that term is used in paragraph 104-106, shall exclude COLA and LASD.
7 104. Defendants, as set forth herein, (a) actually did, or attempted to, threaten,
8 intimidate and/or coerce Plaintiff; (b) interfered with Plaintiffs exercise or enjoyment
9 of his constitutional rights, including but not limited to his right to have Defendants take
10 reasonable measures to protect his safety while he was in their custody and to be free
11 from harm, violence and intimidation; and (c) threatened, or committed, violent acts
12 against Plaintiff. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants injured Plaintiff to
13 prevent Plaintiff from exercising and enjoying his constitutional rights, or to retaliate
14 against Plaintiffs exercise of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff was harmed as a result,
15 and Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff that hann.
16 Defendants' conduct in that regard was deliberate, spiteful and not just negligent,
17 including as it relates to threatening Plaintiff directly and via placing him in a cell with
18 an inmate Defendants !mew would assault Plaintiff (which act Defendants intended and
19 desired to occur). At all times, the individual defendants committed said acts within the
20 course and scope of their employment, and Defendants County of Los Angeles and Los
21 Angeles County Sheriffs Department are liable directly and/or under the doctrine of
22 respondeat superior.
23 105. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts of Defendants,
24 Plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical injuries and is thus entitled to
25 compensatory and other damages according to proof at the time of trial.
27 each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex,
- 37-
1 reason thereof, Plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, and
2 each of them, according to proof at the time of trial.
3
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4
(Cal. Civil Code §51.7)
5 (Against SheriffBaca and Does 1-50)
7 1 through 95 of this Complaint, and incorporates the same herein by reference.
8 Defendants, as that term is used in paragraph 108-110, shall exclude COLA and LASD.
9 108. Defendants, as set forth herein, while acting in their course and scope of
10 their employment with the Sheriff's Department, and under color of state law, did
11 deprive Plaintiff of his liberty and rights, including his rights under Civil Code§ 51.7,
12 to be free from violence, or intimidation or threat of violence. Defendants threatened,
13 or committed, violent acts against Plaintiff as set forth herein. A motivating factor for
14 that conduct was Defendants' knowledge or perception that Plaintiff was mentally ill.
15 Plaintiff was harmed as a result, and Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in
16 causing that harm. At all relevant times, the individual defendants were acting within
17 the course and scope of their employment and Defendants the County of Los Angeles
18 and the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department are liable directly and/or under the doctrine
19 of respondeat superior.
21 Plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical injuries and is thus entitled to
24 each of them koowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex,
28
- 38-
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

I
(Cal. Gov. Code §845.6)
2 (Against County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and Does 1-50)
5 Defendants, as that te1m is used in paragraph 112-114, shall exclude Sheriff Baca.
6 112. Defendants !mew, or had reason to know, that Plaintiff was in need of
7 immediate medical care, including but not limited to his mental illness and/or his
8 suicidal state. By virtue of Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6, Defendants thus owed Plaintiff a
9 duty to summon such medical care for Plaintiff. Defendants had such lmowledge and
10 such a duty, at a minimum, after they were informed by Plaintiffs father and sister of
11 Plaintiffs mental illness and of Plaintiffs suicidal state, after Plaintiff was assaulted by
12 "Wes" and once again after Plaintiff attempted suicide for the first time, which put
13 ' Defendant on further notice that Plaintiff needed immediate medical care because,
14 among other things, he was in a suicidal state. Defendants !mew, or should have
15 !mown, that failing to summon immediately needed medical care for Plaintiff
16 endangered Plaintiffs safety, health, life and general well-being.
18 /Plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical injuries and is thus entitled to
21 each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex,
25
PRAYER
26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
27
28
- 39-
1 i On all Causes of Action

2 (a) Damages according to proof at the time of trial:
3 (b) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
4 (c) Costs of suit necessarily incurred herein; and
5 (d) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just or proper.
6
7 On the First, Second and Third Causes of Action
8 (e) Punitive damages against each of the Defendants in an amount sufficient to
9, punish and to make an example of each said Defendant, and to deter others
10 from engaging in similar conduct, but not against Defendants County of Los
11 Angeles or the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department.
12
13 On the First, Second and Third Causes of Action
14 (f) Reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses oflitigation.
15
16 Dated: October 14, 2013 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
17
18 By: ~FA~~-
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21
22 Plaintiff Geoffrey Ernest Johnson hereby demands a trial by Jury on all causes of
action so triable.
23
24
Dated: October 14, 2013 EAGAN A VENATTl, LLP
25
1!:a~~f¥~dPft
26
27 By:
28 Attorneys for Plaintiff
- 40-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
3 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a
party to the within action; my business address is 450 Newport Center Drive, Second Floor, Newport
4 Beach, CA 92660.
5 On October 14, 2013, I served the foregoing documents described as: SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following person(s) in the manner indicated: (See attached
6 service list)
7 [ I (BY MAIL) I am familiar with the practice of Eagan Avenatti, LLP for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
8 collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the
ordinary course of business. On this date, a copy of said document was placed in a sealed envelope,
9 with postage fully prepaid, addressed as set forth herein, and such envelope was placed for collection
and mailing at Eagan Avenatti, LLP, Newport Beach, California, following ordinary business
10 practices.
11 [ I (BY FEDEX/OVERNITE) I am familiar with the practice of Eagan Avenatti, LLP for
collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by overnight courier. Correspondence so
12 collected and processed is deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx/Overnite
that same day in the ordinary course of business. On this date, a copy of said document was placed in a
13 sealed envelope designated by FedEx/Overnite with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed as
set forth herein, and such envelope was placed for delivery by FedEx at Eagan Avenatti, LLP,
14 Newport Beach, California, following ordinary business practices.
15 [ I (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) On this date, at the time indicated on the transmittal
sheet, attached hereto, I transmitted fi·om a facsimile transmission machine, which telephone number is
16 (949) 700-7050, the document described above and an unsigned copy of this declaration to the person,
and at the facsimile transmission telephone numbers, set forth herein. The above-described
17 transmission was reported as complete and without error by a properly issued transmission repmt
issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was made immediately
18 following the transmission.
19 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) On this date, I caused a copy of said document to be
transmitted via electronic mail to the e-mail addresses listed on the attached service list.
20
[ I (BY MESSENGER SERVICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or
21 package addressed to the person at the addresses listed and providing them to a professional messenger
service for service. [Declaration ofMessenger attached separately.}
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
23 tme and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 14, 2013, at Newport Beach,
California.
24
25
26
27
28
1 Johnson v. Baca, et al.

Case No. BC493409
2
3 Arnie Park, Esq.

Thomas C. Hurrell, Esq.
4 Charles Pharr, Esq.
Sanaz Rashidi, Esq.
5 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP
700 South Flower Street, Suite 900
6 Los Angeles, CA 900 17-4121
Telephone: (213) 426-2000
7 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020
thunell@hurrellcantrall.com
8 cphan@hunellcantrall.com
Srashidiial,hurrellcantral.com
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Geoffrey Ernest Johnson

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Geoffrey Ernest Johnson

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Case 2:13-cv-04496-MMM-AJW Document 19 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:888

EAGAN AVENA TTI, LLP

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 abandoned bridge or rail road tracks.

1 tendencies, Defendants ultimately returned Plaintiff to the general population of Twin

1 procedures, supervision and training relating to preventing inmate on inmate violence

24 Again, notice of numerous violations showing deputy failing to provide reasonable

1 indicated that the pairing would have been unsuitable ...

1 56. The September 9, 2010 ACLU report further reported deputies

1 to prevent inmate on inmate violence, failure to monitor inmates, lax or no supervision

1 want, but if the sheriff doesn't implement them, it doesn't matter."

1 Academy regarding mental illness generally but not specific to Custody or

1 personnel (a) purposefully placed Plaintiff in a cell with a violent inmate

1 them to act on their suicidal intentions, including on an

6 general population (including after Improper

9 65, 69, 73, 77, 79-82, 86, 89, 91);

I person that a failure to act would likely lead to ftniher

1 relates to taking steps to pair cellmates appropriately

violations, Defendants failed to put in place adequate policies,

I 1. That the mentally ill are often placed in inhumane

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1 i On all Causes of Action

28 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

1 Johnson v. Baca, et al.

3 Arnie Park, Esq.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen