State of California Department of Justice
Rob Bonta
Attorney General
Attorney General
The Correctional Law Section is one of the largest in the Civil Division of the California Attorney General’s Office. Deputies in the Correctional Law Section defend high-ranking government officials as well as correctional administrators and employees in federal- and state- court litigation in individual civil-rights cases, appellate matters, and complex class-action suits. Cases address issues ranging from constitutional claims, including religious practices, health care, equal protections, due process, rights of expression, and use of force. Deputies are responsible for their own cases from initial appearance in trial court through appeal, including jury trials and oral argument.
Senior Assistant Attorney General: Neah Huynh
Offices: Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and San Francisco
Johnson v, High Desert State Prison, et al.; United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 23-15299. Three prisoner-plaintiffs jointly filed a lawsuit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed with Defendants that when prisoner-plaintiffs proceed in forma pauperis in a joint litigation, each prisoner-plaintiff is separately responsible for paying the full filing fee under the PLRA. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court based this conclusion on the plain language of the PLRA and noted that its holding is consistent with opinions from the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits.
Stone v. Pfeiffer, et al.; Case No 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleged that he asked a correctional sergeant to place him into protective custody because he feared for his safety but was told that they were unable to do so until he provided evidence of contraband. Consequently, Plaintiff claimed, he manufactured a weapon and, when he showed it to correctional officers, they pepper-sprayed him and beat him. Following a three-day trial by Deputies Brian Lee and John Nam, the jury returned a defense verdict in less than one hour.
Rouser v. White, et al.; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 22-55139. Inmate Rouser appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce a consent decree in this religious-exercise case. Rouser’s main issue concerned access to fire for outdoor group worship. Although the prison had offered battery-operated candles or seven lit votive candles, Rouser was not satisfied with either offer and contended that the prison’s failure to provide fire violated his constitutional rights and a provision in a consent decree requiring access to “fire” subject to fire safety regulations. The district court accepted the prison’s reasons for denying Rouser access to fire and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished decision.
Suarez v. Gamboa, et al.; Case No. 1:22-cv-00160-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants used excessive force after he took too long in the shower and retaliated by issuing a false rule violation report and threatening his safety. The trial lasted two days and, after Deputies Gray Gilmore and Eric Miersma called eight witnesses to the stand, the jury returned a defense verdict in less than an hour.
McCoy v. Holguin, et al.; Case No. 1:15-cv-00768-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants used excessive force against him during an escort to the law library and other staff members ignored the excessive force. After a two-week trial by Deputies Jeremy Duggan, David Kuchinsky, and Daniel Krasiev-Dvornikov, the jury agreed with the defense that the evidence showed that Plaintiff attacked officers first and that the amount of force used was necessary to stop the attacks and restrain Plaintiff.
King v. Davis, et al.; Case No. 19-cv-07722-VC (N.D. Cal.). Defendants transported Plaintiff from San Quentin State Prison to Marin General Hospital for treatment for a possible drug overdose. Shortly after arrival, Plaintiff started displaying erratic behavior that quickly escalated to violence, including physically assaulting correctional officers, tossing a filled bedpan at an officer, fleeing his hospital room, and using an IV pole as a weapon. In response, Defendants tackled Plaintiff in the hallway and used bodily force (no weapons) to prevent Plaintiff from harming hospital staff and escaping. The officers were eventually able to place Plaintiff in restraints, but he continued to struggle. Because of the volatile situation, Marin General medical staff (many who were in the area and frightened) administered a sedative. After the approximately nine-minute struggle, Plaintiff stopped breathing. Medical personnel were able to resuscitate him, but not before Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injury. In support of summary judgment, Deputies Robert Henkels and Jean Trenbeath presented extensive deposition testimony to demonstrate that Plaintiff was actively resisting, members of the public feared for its own safety, and no officer would have believed that taking reasonable force to gain control over an inmate under these circumstances would violate any constitutional right. After a hearing that spanned two days, the Court granted summary judgment.