Coerced Waivers, RICO, Lee Baca (Avalos v. Baca)

Not much time to discuss Avalos v. Baca (here):

J. Avalos was over-detained by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”). He filed this action against officers of the LASD in their official and individual capacities. He asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment based on his over-detention and for defendants’ efforts to procure an involuntary waiver of his civil rights claim based on his over-detention. Avalos also alleges claims of conspiracy and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c)(“RICO”). 
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. 
We conclude that (1) plaintiff has failedto show an unconstitutional custom, policy or practice of over-detention, (2) there is no actionable claim under § 1983 for procuring a coercive or involuntary waiver of a civil rights claim, (3) the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s conspiracy claims, and (4) plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence of a RICO violation or any harm to his business or property from the alleged act of racketeering. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants isaffirmed.
Seems odd that a person cannot state a Section 1983 claim for a coerced waiver.  Isn't a right to sue someone a property interest?  If the government forces you to relinquish your right to sue, isn't that a deprivation of a property interest?  Moreover, a person has a First Amendment right to petition to the court for redress of grievances.  Coercing a citizen to give up that right would be a First Amendment violation.

Also of note: The Yagman law firm has been on a decade-long crusade to hold L.A. County liable under RICO. No luck, so far.

0 comments: