J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, et al.

Aleah Jenkins was arrested at a traffic stop and fell ill during the long ride to police headquarters. She repeatedly vomited, screamed in anguish, pleaded for help, and slurred her speech. Despite these obvious signs of extreme medical distress, Officer Durbin told her “You’re fine” and to “knock it off.” He did not get her medical care or even radio ahead to have medical personnel ready for their arrival at police headquarters.

After pulling into headquarters, he opened the rear door of his patrol car and saw Ms. Jenkins lying face down on the back seat. Still, he did not call for medical care. Instead, he dragged Ms. Jenkins out of the car and laid her on the parking garage floor where she twitched, mumbled incoherently, and breathed abnormally fast. Officer Durbin and another officer fingerprinted her on the ground of the parking lot and then put her back into the patrol car. Officer Durbin left her in the back seat, face down, handcuffed, and in obvious distress, for more than 11 minutes. It was after he returned that he finally decided to call for paramedics, but by then, Ms. Jenkins had stopped breathing and was unconscious. She fell into a coma and died nine days later.  

Ms. Jenkins’s young son, J.K.J., filed suit through his father and personal representative, naming Officer Durbin and another officer for the denial of medical care and the deprivation of life without due process. He also sued the City of San Diego for its failures of hiring, training, and supervising police officers. The district court dismissed all the claims.  

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed the district court’s opinion in a 2-1 decision. The panel then granted rehearing and issued an amended opinion and dissent, holding that the two officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the City could not be liable because no City policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.  

The MacArthur Justice Center signed on to represent J.K.J, along with co-counsel Navab Law, APC and West Coast Trial Lawyers, APLC, in a petition for rehearing en banc to help correct this injustice. If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would allow officers to escape liability for mistakes they claimed to make—even if a jury could find their alleged mistakes patently unreasonable. 

UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit recently granted our petition for rehearing en banc and is set to reconsider the panel decision. Oral argument is scheduled for the week of June 20, 2023.