Larry Jones vs. County Of Los Angeles, et al

Case Background

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Larry Jones filed an Assault and Excessive force lawsuit in the United States District Court, California Central (Case number: 2:24cv1388). This case was assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and referred to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth.

Cause

Deputy Ira Ynigo, a corrections officer with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force when he violently slammed a metal steel door on inmate Larry Jones’ finger at the Men’s Central Jail on September 19, 2023. Jones, who had documented physical limitations and ADA accommodations, relied on the door frame for stability as prescribed by his doctor. The jail guard demonstrated deliberate indifference when he proceeded to lock the door despite Jones’ obvious distress, causing severe injury. FBI-installed tier cameras captured the entire incident, revealing the extent of the correctional officer’s misconduct and excessive force. Deputy Cruz participated in filing a falsified assault and battery report. This further demonstrated a pattern of excessive force at the facility. It also highlighted ongoing violations of prisoner rights that had plagued the facility.

Injuries

The excessive force used by Deputy Ynigo resulted in catastrophic consequences for Jones. The violent door slamming caused immediate, severe trauma, leading to profuse bleeding from his finger. The injury worsened when Deputy Ynigo deliberately locked the door instead of providing emergency medical assistance. Medical personnel later determined that the correctional officer’s use of excessive force directly led to the complete amputation of Jones’ fingertip. This prison injury lawsuit highlights the severe physical consequences of unchecked excessive force by jail guards and the systemic failure to protect inmate medical rights.

Damages

The damages extended far beyond the immediate physical trauma caused by excessive force. Jones endured excruciating pain and developed severe psychological trauma from the correctional officer’s actions. The permanent loss of his fingertip significantly impaired his ability to perform basic daily tasks. Jones’ legal team pursued a comprehensive jail injury compensation package totaling $40 million per claim. The prisoner rights violation case demanded both compensatory and punitive damages to address the egregious nature of the jail guard’s excessive force. The correctional officer’s liability extended to claims for attorney’s fees and legal costs. This substantial compensation demand reflected the severity of the prison guard abuse and its lasting impact on Jones’ life, while also serving as a deterrent against future incidents of excessive force in jails.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Larry Jones
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Apemwoyah Kisob Alaric-Lorenzo
  • Defendant(s): County of Los Angeles | Ira Ynigo | Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
    • Counsel for Defendants: Daniel P. Barer | Karen Stepanyan | Lenore Cabreros Kelly

Claims

The prison guard abuse case presented multiple causes of action under both federal and state law. The Section 1983 civil rights claim addressed the violation of Jones’ constitutional rights, including protection against excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment. The correctional officer’s liability extended to claims of assault, battery, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The jail injury settlement demand included comprehensive compensation for all damages sustained. The Monell claim specifically targeted Los Angeles County’s systemic failures in training and supervision of jail guards, which directly contributed to the pattern of excessive force and prisoner rights violations.

Defense

The defendants—County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Deputy Ira Ynigo—filed an answer to Larry Jones’s complaint. They admitted that the County operates Men’s Central Jail and that Ynigo was a deputy sheriff at the time of the alleged incident. However, they argued that the Sheriff’s Department was a duplicative party that should be dismissed, as it was already represented through the County.

For most allegations in the complaint, the defendants claimed they lacked sufficient information to respond and, therefore, denied them. They raised 21 affirmative defenses, including: the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury through his own actions; the defendants had qualified immunity as government officials; any damages were caused by the plaintiff’s conduct; the defendants acted reasonably and in good faith; and the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

The defendants also asserted that they were immune from punitive damages as government entities, that mere negligence was insufficient to establish constitutional violations, and that any injuries were either unavoidable or caused by the plaintiff’s wrongful conduct rather than the defendants’ actions. They argued that if any liability was found, damages should be reduced proportionally based on the plaintiff’s contribution to the injuries. The defendants concluded by demanding a jury trial for the case.

Jury Verdict

On September 20, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants, including Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Deputy Ira Ynigo. After reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, the jury concluded that Deputy Ynigo’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for constitutional violations. Although the plaintiff characterized the actions as excessive force, the jury determined that the defendants were not liable. The defense successfully argued that the actions, while harsh, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request