Lyons v. Los Angeles, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, USDC 77-0420-RMT.
At least four LAPD chokehold deaths occurred before the Lyons suit
was filed: Middleton, Fairbanks, Ford and Dailey.
This was a lawsuit filed February 17, 1977 and brought under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 action by a 29-year-old black male, Adolph Lyons, who
was choked and almost died from an LAPD choke hold on October 6, 1976,
the day after Dailey's death.
Lyons sought damages as well as equitable relief in the form of an
injunction restricting LAPD choke hold use to situations where death or
serious bodily injury was threatened.
The district court initially dismissed Lyons' claims for equitable
relief, holding there was no "case or controversy." The Ninth Circuit reversed
and the Supreme Court denied the City's application for certiorari.
The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was ominous because it was
accompanied by a written dissent by Justice White, joined by Justices
Rehnquist and Powell. (Recall that it takes to votes of only four Justices
for certiorari to be granted). White proclaimed "[F]ederal courts are not
the forum in which dissatisfied citizens may air their disagreements with
government policy." He admitted that Lyons had standing to raise his damage
claim, but as to the threat of "future injury, [Lyon's] position cannot
be distinguished from that of any other person who may at some future date
have a confrontation with the Los Angeles police." 449 U.S. 334 (1980).
Extensive discovery ensued. We took testimony from numerous physicians
(in emergency medicine), karate experts, judo experts, and police training
experts.
Meanwhile, since 1978 six more chokehold deaths occurred: Whitehead,
Adkins, Cameron, Wright, Acree, and Morris .
We filed the chokehold history, LAPD policy and training, and loads
of expert testimony with Judge Takasugi. In December, 1980, he granted
the injunction, prohibiting both chokeholds except in situations where
death or serious bodily injury was threatened until the LAPD revamped its
training to his satisfaction.
But the injunction did not stop the deaths. The City appealed to the
Ninth Circuit which stayed the injunction.
And four more chokehold deaths occurred: Marshall, Hill, Cousins,
and McNeil.
Trouble was brewing for Lyons in the Supreme Court. Justice Potter
Stewart -- who had obviously voted to deny review of Lyons in 1980 -- announced
his retirement. On July 7, 1981, President Reagan nominated Sandra Day
O'Conner to replace him. You may recall that Justice Rehnquist, who was
responsible for the Ninth Circuit, graduated from Stanford Law School.
As did Mrs. O'Conner.
On August 17, 1981, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Takasugi's issuance
of the injunction, say it was a "relatively innocuous interference by the
judiciary with police practices . . . nine people have died . . . ." (They
did not know about the last five).
In response, the City went to Justice Rehnquist and requested a stay
of the injunction pending receipt of the City's application for review.
Throughout September, I daily phoned Justice Rehnquist's office to
find out whether he had ruled on the stay request. On September 22, the
Senate confirmed the appointment of Justice O'Conner. On September 24,
Justice Rehnquist's clerk told me, "Don't call tomorrow; we're having a
party to celebrate the swearing-in of Justice O'Conner."
On September 29, Justice Rehnquist stayed the injunction stating, "I
think there is a substantial likelihood that an additional member of this
court would now join Justice White's dissent from the denial of cert .
. ."
Certiorari was granted. In May 1982, the Los Angeles Police Commission
adopted a policy which embodied the district court's injunction. Lyons
unsuccessfully moved the Supreme Court to dismiss as moot. The case was
argued November 2, 1982 (You
can listen to the Supreme Court arguments by clicking here) and the
Supreme Court reversed (5-4). Justice White wrote the opinion holding that
Lyons lacked standing to seek equitable relief. Justice Marshall wrote
a vigorous dissent, joined by Justices Brennan, Blackman, and Stevens.
You might be interested in reading the decision: 461
U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct.1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
The case settled with Lyons being paid a nominal amount and the ACLU
being paid its costs.
The Supreme Court decision was a disaster for us all. Federal courts
had no power to stop deadly police chokeholds; they could only award damages
to the survivors.
The City threatened to reinstate chokehold use under its old policy.
I pointed out that California state courts still had to power to enjoin
waste of taxpayer money based on illegal acts (including unconstitutional
acts) and told the City I would meet them in state court the next day with
all of Lyons' evidence. The old policy has never been reinstated.
I undertook this case as a volunteer attorney for ACLU Foundation of
Southern California which paid all of the costs and vigorously supported
the litigation. The Foundation is responsible for the ultimate outcome
of the debate about police choke holds -- the Foundation stopped the choke
holds and the deaths they caused. There has not been since 1984 any death
from LAPD choke hold.
There is some hope. I filed the Lyons lawsuit as a class action
but -- busy with taking testimony all over the U.S. -- somehow never got
around to moving the District Court to certify the class. A 1991 Supreme
Court decision suggests that certified class actions can survive the Lyons'
standing barrier even if the named plaintiff's claims do not. County
of Riverside v. McLaughlin 500 U.S. 44 (1991).
For the moment, you might get a kick out of what former LAPD Police
Chief Darryl Gates said about the Rodney King police billy club beating.
He said that if the LAPD had been authorized to use choke holds (he calls
them "upper body control holds"), they could have subdued Rodney King without
beating him. I find this argument to be absurd. The facts show that when
the LAPD was able to use choke holds absent any threat of serious bodily
harm, an average of two arrestees per year (mostly black males like Rodney
King) died. The same facts show not one single death in all those years
-- or the ones since -- from the LAPD hittinnng people with billy clubs.
The published procedural history of the case follows. Lyons I
615 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir., 1980) cert. den. 449 U.S.934, 101 S.Ct.
333, 66 L.Ed.2d 158; (Lyons II) 656 F.2d 417 (9th Cir., 1981) (per
curiam) mandate stayed pending cert 102 S.Ct. 14 (1981), cert granted
455 U.S. 937, 102 S.Ct. 1426, 71 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982) (argued November 2,
1982), rev'd 461
U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct.1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
Written Commentary (almost all negative on) Lyons v. Los Angeles
See "Developments, The Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Standing to Seek Equitable
Relief," 97 H.L.R. 215-24 (1983); "Notes, Standing and Injunctions: The
Demise of Public Law Litigation and Other Effects of Lyons," 25
Boston College Law Review 765 (1984) Fallon, "Of Justiciability, Remedies,
and
Public Law Litigation: Notes on the Jurisprudence of Lyons" See
also, Tribe, Constitutional Choices, Ch. 8, "Choke Holds, Church
Subsidies, and Nuclear Meltdowns: Problems of Standing?" (Harvard University
Press, 1985); Martin H. Redish, The Federal Courts in the Political
Order, 95 (1991); Lyons: The Availability of Injunctive Relief in Section
1983 Actions, 18 Loy Y. U. Chi. L.J.1085, 1085 (1987); Gene R. Nichol,
Jr., Rethinking Standing, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 68, 100-01(1984); Steven L. Winter,
The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, 40 Stanford
An. L. Rev. 1371, 1374-75 (1988); Ronald T. Gerwatowski, Note, Standing
and Injunctions: The Demise of Public Law Litigation and Other Effects
of Lyons, 25 B.C. L. Rev. 765 (1984).
Sixteen LAPD Chokehold Deaths: 1975-1982
Return to Civil Rights Home Page
You can reach me by e-mail at: mitchel4@ix.netcom.com
Phone: (818) 887-7100
FAX: (818) 887-0010
20300 Ventura Booulevard, No. 317, Woodland Hills, CA 91364
