Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Josefina Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles Ronald Black, Josefina Cabrales, Cross-Appellant v. County of Los Angeles Ronald Black, Cross-Appellees

Josefina Cabrales v. County of L.A. Ronald Black, Josefina Cabrales, Cross-Appellant v. County of L.A. Ronald Black, Cross-Appellees, 886 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-09-21
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • finding deliberate indifference because the same jailers had rescued decedent from a previous suicide attempt
  • “[A]cts of 24 omission, as well as commission, may constitute the predicate for a finding of 25 liability under section 1983.”
  • “Mathematically, it is inconsequential whether the lodestar figure itself is adjusted for lack of success or whether the reasonable hours component of the lodestar is adjusted for lack of success. What matters is that the district court did not ‘count’ for lack of success twice.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Josefina Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles Ronald Black, Josefina Cabrales, Cross-Appellant v. County of Los Angeles Ronald Black, Cross-Appellees. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
77 opinions
CABRALES v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,886 F.2d 235(9th Cir. 1989)
JOSEFINA CABRALES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
RONALD BLACK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
JOSEFINA CABRALES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES; RONALD BLACK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLEES.
Nos. 87-6061, 87-6371 and 87-6306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
September 21, 1989.
Page 236
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before FARRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER,fn*District Judge.
[1] ORDER
[2] InCabrales v. County of Los Angeles,864 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1988),vacated___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2425, 104 L.Ed.2d 982 (1989), we upheld a jury verdict in favor of Mrs. Cabrales on her section 1983 claim against the County of Los Angeles. The Supreme Court vacated our opinion and remanded for consideration in light ofCity of Canton v. Harris,___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). That decision clearly does not undermine our separate conclusions that, first, the County failed to preserve its sufficiency of the evidence arguments because it did not move for a directed verdict, and second, that the California statute of limitations did not bar Mrs. Cabrales's claim against defendant Black. We thus need only consider whetherHarrisalters our conclusions that the district court properly denied summary judgment against Mrs. Cabrales because there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the County had a policy manifesting a deliberate indifference to the needs of pretrial detainees; and whether the jury was properly instructed that the County could be held liable under section 1983 only if there was sufficient evidence of such a policy. We conclude thatHarrisdoes not alter our previous opinion on either of these points.

[3] InHarris,the Supreme Court determined that a municipality can be held liable for a constitutional policy if it is culpable for an unconstitutional application of its policy. The Court then held that a municipality is culpable if its failure adequately to train police officers exhibits a "deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact."Id.at 1204. By contrast, inCabraleswe held that there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the County's policy of understaffing the jail with psychiatrists was itself unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. To be unconstitutional required a showing that the County had a policy of "deliberate indifference" to the medical needs of prisoners. 864 F.2d at 1461. Because the policy of understaffing was considered unconstitutional, there was no need for us to determine separately whether the County could be held culpable for an unconstitutional application of its policy.

[4] Accordingly, we order that our previous decision be REINSTATED.Page 237
  1. Hon. M.D. Crocker, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩