Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Lawsuit Over Suicide at L.A. County Jail Properly Dismissed
Opinion Says Plaintiffs Failed to Plausibly Plead Deliberate Indifference in Not Taking Precautions Based on Decedent Allegedly Saying He Was Thinking of Killing Himself Before He Was Released, Rearrested
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of violating the constitutional rights of a licensed social worker who committed suicide while in custody on robbery charges at the county’s Twin Tower Correctional Facility for failure to state a claim.
Rejecting the plaintiffs’ assertion that the county acted with deliberate indifference by not imposing heightened supervision and the removal of items that could be used to commit suicide based on the decedent’s having expressed to jail officials, months earlier, that he was thinking of killing himself before he was released and rearrested, the court declared that the allegations were not so “obviously severe” that a reasonable official would realize the risk.
In a memorandum decision, signed by Circuit Judges Kenneth K. Lee, Lucy H. Koh, and Ana de Alba, the court reasoned that the claims were foreclosed by the fact that the plaintiffs admit that the decedent, on the day he killed himself, denied harboring suicidal thoughts. Based on that admission, they opined:
“[The plaintiffs] did not adequately allege that ‘a reasonable official…would have appreciated’ that the risk of [the decedent] committing suicide…was so ‘high’ that ‘the consequences of the defendant’s conduct [was] obvious.’…A reasonable official would not have thought that [the inmate] was at an ‘excessive risk’ of suicide on the same day that [he] expressed having no suicidal ideation.”
Complaint Filed
After Joseph Posard removed an electrical cord from the hospital bed in the medical facility at the jail in which he was housed and hung himself, his estate, by and through the guardian ad litem of his minor children, and his mother filed a complaint against the county as well as the former and current Los Angeles County Sheriffs, Alex Villanueva and Robert Luna, among others, on Dec. 13, 2023.
In the operative second amended complaint, the plaintiffs asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims for failure to protect and failure to provide medical care under 42 U.S.C. §1983, as well as other causes of action. The plaintiffs alleged that he was placed on suicide watch at the facility in August 2022 after he expressed suicidal thoughts following an assault by six other inmates.
They claimed that he was released from custody that October only to be re-arrested on the charges again in early December. The plaintiffs alleged that a nurse noted that he “seem[ed] very sad” the day before his suicide and asserted:
“Because it was known…that [he] had been on Suicide Watch multiple times…only six weeks prior[],….[a]ny competent mental health staff would have considered Mr. Posard’s past and current suicidal behavior, criminal charges indicative of impulse control, history of substance abuse, history of mental disorder and treatment with psychiatric medications to be significant elevated risks of suicide…warranting a…plan with heightened levels of supervision…and the removal of any…hazards from the…housing unit…which was essentially the overflow hospital room….”
Other Red Flag
The plaintiffs added:
“Any competent mental health provider should have considered the charge of second-degree robbery to be a red flag, particularly because such a criminal charge was highly unusual for a practicing Licensed Clinical Social Worker…clinician.”
On Dec. 5, 2024, District Court Judge Percy Anderson of the Central District of California dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, noting that the plaintiffs “have had three attempts to state a viable Section 1983 claim but have failed” to “satisfy the deliberate indifference standard.” Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants that same day.
Lee, Koh, and de Alba wrote:
“On appeal, Plaintiffs’ primary argument is that the district court applied the wrong legal standards in assessing the Section 1983 claims for failure to protect and failure to provide medical care: first, by applying a heightened pleading standard; and second, by failing to apply the requisite ‘objective deliberate indifference’ standard. Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing….”
Saying that “[t]he district court properly applied the ‘plausibility’ pleading standard,” the court noted that a claim will pass muster if the plaintiff has pled factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misdeeds.
Objective Standard
Addressing the “objective deliberate indifference” standard applicable to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims, the panel pointed out that a plaintiff must prove something akin to “reckless disregard” of an excessive risk to a party’s health and safety by failing to take reasonable precautions.
Applying those principles, the jurists remarked:
“None of Plaintiffs’…allegations overcome the fact that Posard expressed ‘no suicidal ideation’ on the day of his suicide. Plaintiffs make much of the fact that half a year before his suicide, Posard was arrested a first time, and four months prior to his suicide, Posard was placed on, then removed from, suicide watch. Those events are not adequate allegations that there was an ‘excessive risk’ that Posard would commit suicide four to six months later….”
They continued:
“Plaintiffs point to other allegations, such as the fact that Posard was a licensed clinical social worker who ‘had been arrested twice in a period of just months’ and the fact that Posard was allegedly ‘very sad’ and ‘anxious and restless’ on December 10. However, Plaintiffs do not explain why the fact that a licensed social worker had been arrested twice within a half-year timespan should lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the social worker was at ‘excessive risk’ of suicide….Plaintiffs are not entitled to unreasonable inferences from their factual allegations.”
Determining that the plaintiff’s other claims are “contingent on an underlying constitutional violation,” the judges said that “we affirm” the defense judgment.
The case is Estate of Posard v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 24-7534.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company