California prison guards look to toss inmate death, desecration suit

The mother of a man who was killed by a fellow inmate has argued for years that officials should have never placed the pair in a cell together.(CN) — Despite knowing that a California inmate posed serious risks to others, prison officials still placed him in a cell with another person, leading to a death, attorney Erin Darling told a federal judge on Friday.Therefore, Darling argued, prison officials’ latest attempts to scuttle a lawsuit over the incident should be denied.Darling is representing Dora Solares, who sued over the 2019 death of her son Luis Romero at Corcoran State Prison.Just two days after Romero transferred to the facility, fellow inmate Jaime Osuna was accused of killing him and desecrating his body. Solares’ lawsuit, filed in 2020, named as defendants several corrections officers who were on duty at the time of her son’s death or who served on a prison committee that placed the two in the same cell.Representing the officers in a Zoom hearing, California Deputy Attorney General Jeremy Duggan said Solares needed to show the defendants showed deliberate indifference to survive motions for summary judgement. In other words: that officers knew Osuna posed a substantial risk of harm but disregarded it.Deputy Attorney General David Kuchinsky said Solares needed more than speculation.“We know that Osuna is a threat to peace officers, inmates, even himself sometimes,” Darling said.Sitting by designation, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal, a George H.W. Bush appointee, noted that Osuna had 28 rule violations and had been held by himself in a cell prior to the incident.Duggan argued that alone wasn’t enough for a finding of deliberate indifference. He said that most of Osuna’s rule violations concerned staff and that “that’s not a predictor of violence toward other inmates.”When Romero arrived at the prison, he and Osuna spoke for about 30 minutes while in separate cells. They then signed an agreement to become cellmates.Officials didn’t know any significant risk of harm existed, Duggan argued, which means there was no deliberate indifference. And while both men had violent histories, he noted everyone in their prison unit did.Duggan said Rosenthal shouldn’t infer that Burns had information just because he had kept Osuna in a single cell.Instead, Duggan said Burns reviewed records and found no substantial risk of harm. He made similar arguments for other committee members.Darling pushed back, saying Burns knew about a specific attack at another facility.“He literally said, ‘We know Osuna is a threat,’” he said Burns.There was a bedsheet hanging in the pair’s cell on the night of Romero’s death — a violation of prison rules.In her lawsuit, Solares argued it obstructed officers’ view. Rosenthal asked why that wouldn’t expose on-duty officers to liability despite their qualified immunity.“They know they’re not allowed to have cell coverings,” Darling concurred. “They’re required to do these visual checks.”Rosenthal did not make a decision on Friday.“You have given me a great deal to chew on,” she said. “I will do so.”The case has wound through the courts for years, with Solares filing her fifth amended complaint last year. That came after Rosenthal in February 2025 found the circumstances did not support a claim for failing to summon medical care but gave Solares leave to amend.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads