University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Rosas v. Baca JC-CA-0073
Docket / Court 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
On January 18, 2012, prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jail filed this class action in the United States Court for the Central District of California. The prisoners sued the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The prisoners, represented by the ACLU of Southern ... read more >
On January 18, 2012, prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jail filed this class action in the United States Court for the Central District of California. The prisoners sued the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The prisoners, represented by the ACLU of Southern California, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. Specifically, they claimed that violence by LASD deputies -- "sadistic beat[ing] of inmates" that included "broken legs, fractured eye sockets, shattered jaws, broken teeth, severe head injuries, nerve damage, dislocated joints, collapsed lungs, and wounds requiring dozens of stitches and 22 staples" -- violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

This case's origins lie in the landmark case Rutherford v. Block (JC-CA-0018 in this Clearinghouse). That case resulted in the appointment of a special master to monitor and report reform efforts in the Los Angeles Jail system. The 30 semiannual reports submitted in that litigation highlight the illegal treatment of mentally ill detainees and the incidence of violence in the Los Angeles Jail system.

The ACLU also submitted annual reports on the Los Angeles County Jail system in the Rutherford litigation. Its reports alleged the rise of a gang of deputies who were supervising the jail. The plaintiffs alleged that this gang, the "3000 boys," incited and committed violence against prisoners, and competed with other jail deputy gangs for control of the jail, involving the prisoners in their struggle for control. Members of the gang were said to have a "3000" tattoo on the back of their necks.

The plaintiffs in this case cited reports from prisoners, ACLU reports, and quotes from the Sheriff of Los Angeles that confirmed the existence of the gang, though the activities of the gang were disputed. The plaintiffs also alleged that a culture of violence had taken root in the county jail, citing multiple incidences of mentally ill prisoners being beaten and men being beaten for witnessing other beatings. The plaintiffs also alleged that several of these beatings resulted in disciplinary segregation for the victims. Other incidents were witnessed by chaplains, in-jail educators, and visitors. The plaintiffs described taunting and beatings that were were racially motivated, disproportionately affected the mentally ill, and constituted punishment for perceived slights rather than violations of jail policy. They also claimed that prisoners conferring with the ACLU were particularly subject to violence. There were 51 specific incidents set forth in the complaint that occurred in 2010-2011, however the plaintiffs alleged that the violence had been ongoing for at least 12 years.

On June 7, 2012, the Court (Judge Dean Pregerson) issued an unpublished order that certified the plaintiff class and denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. 2012 WL 2061694 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2012). Then, the parties continued with discovery and entered into settlement talks from 2012-2015.

On January 6, 2015, both parties filed a joint motion for a settlement. The settlement was approved in April 2015. Under the settlement agreement, the Sheriff's Department will adopt a detailed and far-reaching plan to reform department policies and practices on use of force. A panel of three court-appointed experts, who were assigned to write the plan, will monitor the department's compliance with all aspects of the remedial plan. The defendants also agreed to pay $950,000 in attorneys' fees and to pay reasonable attorneys' fees for ongoing work to ensure compliance with the settlement up to $30,000 per year. The plaintiffs' attorneys will act as the monitors. The settlement also included enhanced training in use of force for all deputies and methods for tracking and review of use of force incidents and detainees' complaints and grievances. To apply to the court for termination of the agreement consistent with the PLRA, the defendant had to maintain compliance for 18 months as monitored by the panel.

On April 21, 2015, the Court (Judge Dean Pregerson) approved the settlement and dismissed the case. However, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement.

Then on June 16, 2016 the case was reassigned to Judge Michael R. Wilner because the previous judge was no longer available. Judge Wilner issued an order governing the disclosure of records following his appointment on June 17, 2016.

Judge Wilner then granted attorney's fees in the amount of $60,000 for work performed in 2015 and 2016 by the class attorneys on October 19, 2017.

As of March 22, 2018 the Court still has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Blase Kearney - 07/24/2012
Jessica Kincaid - 10/30/2015
Will McCartney - 03/22/2018

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Mental impairment
Race discrimination
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Assault/abuse by staff
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Failure to train
Grievance Procedures
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Personal injury
Records Disclosure
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Los Angeles County
Plaintiff Description Present and future prisoners of the Los Angeles County Jail complex.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2015 - n/a
Filing Year 2012
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing JC-CA-0018 : Rutherford v. Block (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0012 : Douglas v. Cooley (State Court)
2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/27/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Settlement Agreement
JC-CA-0073-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: ACLU
Complaint for Injunctive Relief Class Action
JC-CA-0073-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/18/2012
First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief Class Action [ECF# 32]
JC-CA-0073-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/03/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 54] (2012 WL 2061694) (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/07/2012
Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Report Concerning Violence in Los Angeles County Jails, and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits; Additional Declarations of Civilian Witnesses and Current Former Inmaes [ECF# 79]
JC-CA-0073-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/28/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Protective Order [ECF# 84] (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/22/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Preliminarily Approving Parties' Proposed Settlement [ECF# 111] (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/23/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Approving Class Settlement, Retaining Jurisdiction to Enforce Terms of Settlement Agreement, Dismissing Action (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/21/2015
Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Pregerson, Dean D. (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073-0001 | JC-CA-0073-0003 | JC-CA-0073-0005 | JC-CA-0073-0006 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Balaban, Eric G. (District of Columbia)
JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Durrant, John S. (California)
JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-0009 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
JC-CA-0073-0002 | JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-0009 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Jones, Kyle Michael (California)
Leung , Jade H. (California)
JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Melby, Donna M. (California)
JC-CA-0073-0002 | JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Morgan, Nichols (California)
Mueller, Elizabeth Christie (California)
JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Orihuela, Marisol (California)
JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Puathasnanon, Sam S. (California)
Shapiro, David M. (District of Columbia)
JC-CA-0073-0002 | JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Turanchik, Stephen J. (California)
Winter, Margaret (District of Columbia)
JC-CA-0073-0002 | JC-CA-0073-0004 | JC-CA-0073-0007 | JC-CA-0073-0009 | JC-CA-0073-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Beach, Paul B (California)
Burton, Cori M. (California)
Clark, Justin W. (California)
Granbo, Roger H. (California)
Joynt, Karen C. (California)
Matz, Jeremy D. (California)
Miller, Kimberley M. (California)
Murillo, Tiana J. (California)
Park, Amie S (California)
Zuiderweg, Alexandra B (California)
Other Lawyers Gibbons, Elizabeth J. (California)

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -