County Can Be Sued, Court Rules

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office can be held liable for retaliating against a prosecutor who reported his suspicions that a sheriff’s deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision came in a federal lawsuit filed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Ceballos, who said he had been demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose what he believed had been misconduct.

The three-judge panel ruled that Ceballos’ speech was protected by the 1st Amendment. The judges determined that the district attorney’s office and the county did not have immunity from the lawsuit because “Ceballos’ speech addressed a matter of public concern” and “his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption.”

The action means Ceballos’ lawsuit, thrown out by a lower court, can go forward. But the county may ask for the case to be reheard by a panel of 11 judges.

Ceballos said he was pleased with the decision. He said the ruling could make it easier for whistle-blowers in county agencies to report misconduct.

“Somebody had to stand up to the office,” which was being run by Gil Garcetti at the time, Ceballos said in an interview.

In the midst of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart corruption scandal, he said, the district attorney’s office was trying to silence a prosecutor wanting to expose corruption.

The county was disappointed by the ruling, said Roger Granbo with the county counsel’s office. “We think it’s the wrong decision,” he said.

Granbo said the county believed the actions taken regarding Ceballos had not been retaliatory. The controversy began in February 2000, when a defense attorney told Ceballos that a sheriff’s deputy might have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos, who had been a prosecutor for 11 years and was working in the Pomona office, investigated and determined that the deputy sheriff had given false information in the affidavit.

Ceballos wrote a memorandum recommending dismissal of the case to which the search warrant related. His supervisors, Carol Najera and Frank Sundstedt, initially agreed that the warrant was questionable, according to the court decision. But they met with representatives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and then decided to proceed with the case. Ceballos testified on behalf of the defense in a hearing about the validity of the search warrant. He was taken off the case.

“There were some real, real problems,” he said. “I had a doubt as to the veracity of the warrant.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, however, upheld the search warrant. Ceballos said his supervisors demoted him from his position as calendar deputy, denied him a promotion despite his high evaluation scores and transferred him to the El Monte office. They also barred him from handling any murder cases.

He filed a grievance with the office, which was rejected. He then filed the lawsuit against Najera, Sundstedt, Garcetti and the county. A federal court ruled that Ceballos’ speech was not protected and that the county and the district attorney’s office had immunity. But the 9th Circuit’s March 22 decision overturned that ruling.

Ceballos, who now works in the public integrity division of the office, said he hoped the decision would encourage prosecutors to report misconduct.

“It happens, and when it does, you’ve got to say something about it,” he said. “You can’t just look the other way.”