Overview: Moreno Valley School District settles major lawsuit involving a Black student with special needs, C.B. The case exposed systemic denial of support services and alleged police misconduct, leading to a landmark ruling and policy change.
S.E. Williams
On November 27, news broke regarding a major settlement in a case that rocked the Moreno Valley School District in 2021. The case resurfaced in 2023, due to a partial federal ruling in the case against the school district.. The lawsuit in question, involved the maltreatment, harm and arrest by school police of C.B., who in 2021, was a ten-year-old Black student with special needs. Initials are being used to protect the identity of CB and his family.
On February 4, 2021, Disability Rights California, Barajas & Rivera APC, and Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction and damages against the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD), former Moreno Valley School District Superintendent Martinrex Kedziora, Riverside County, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, and Riverside County Sheriff, Chad Bianco.
As reported by Black Voice News in December, 2023, details of the case were disturbing. Plaintiffs argued that the MVUSD systematically denied C.B. the legally mandated support services required under federal and state education laws. Instead, according to the complaint, MVUSD created “an atmosphere of crisis for the student.” The complaint further asserted that denial of services was “a direct cause of the disciplinary incidents that followed.”
The complaint further stated school police officers “used excessive force and discriminated against C.B. based on his disability and race when they “violently handcuffed him multiple times on MVUSD middle school campuses.” In addition to violating C.B’s rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs claimed these actions also violated multiple state civil rights laws and several common law torts.
Cherie Blair
Not surprisingly, Riverside officials (the defendants) made attempts to have the case dismissed claiming the plaintiffs were attempting to play the race card. A federal judge, however, disagreed. The judge admonished county officials for obviously failing to read school arrest data published by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The data clearly showed, “[B]lack students are more likely to be arrested and arrested for non-violent offenses than their non Black peers.”
In October 2023 a federal court slapped MVUSD with a group of sanctions as punishment for hiding evidence related to the case. On November 30, 2023, the judge ruled MVUSD had broken the law and violated the American With Disabilities Act. It further ordered MVUSD to change its policing policy. This order was believed to be the first such ruling in the nation and could eventually change the state of policing in schools across the country. This mandated policy change is yet to be implemented by MVUSD.
Injury to a disabled child
The lawsuit claimed C.B.’s injuries include, “severe anxiety, regression in his academic and behavioral development, and long-term emotional distress requiring extensive therapeutic intervention.” The plaintiffs further argued that the trauma C.B. sustained severely disrupted his ability to access education which in essence denied C.B. his fundamental right to a free and appropriate public education. i
To help mitigate these injuries the plaintiffs sought compensatory damages for ongoing medical and psychological treatment, specialized educational services, and compensation for emotional pain and suffering. In addition, the plaintiffs sought punitive damages against the individual Defendants, arguing that their actions or lack thereof amounted to a willful and malicious disregard for C.B.’s civil and constitutional rights. Also, as is typical, the Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the lengthy legal battle.
A major settlement
Extensive mediation and pretrial conferences that began more than a year ago eventually led to the recent settlement of the case precluding the need for a trial. The pre-trial settlement brought an end to all claims in this case against MVUSD, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and individual defendants.
Although the total amount of the settlement was not disclosed, the court left zero ambiguity regarding who prevailed in this case. As a result, it cleared the way for C.B.’s counsel to be reimbursed for their legal expenses. The settlement awarded for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, were disclosed. The amount totaled $5,354,260.
With this amount in mind, I thought I would take a SWAG. (Scientific Wild Axx Guess) at what the total amount of the settlement might be. In lawsuits involving constitutional violations, youth justice, or systemic discrimination, courts sometimes allow the awarding of a plaintiff’s legal fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 or similar statutes. Section 1988 deals with proceedings in the vindication of civil rights. In this instance rather than the standard 30% charged by some attorneys on contingency in discrimination cases, it is possible that the court allowed fees more in alignment with 42 U.S.C. §1988 that can range between 10% and 20%.
Backing into a total settlement amount using the typical 30% payout, the total settlement in C.B.’s case might be in the range of $17,847,533 . . . a considerable amount. However, if the court allowed the attorneys to be paid under 42 U.S.C. §1988 or a similar statute, it is possible the attorney reimbursement amount of $5,354,260 represents only 20% of the total settlement amount on the high end to 10% on the low end. In this instance, the total settlement could range between $26,771,300 at 20% to $53,542,600 at the 10% rate.
What about Bianco
Although Riverside County’s “I want to be your governor” Bianco escaped personal liability in this case, once again taxpayers are left holding an expensive tab for his failed leadership of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department as it relates to the officers involved in the C.B. incidents (this time along with MVUSD). Just over a year ago during an interview with CBSLA, Bianco was asked if he would settle the case. “Absolutely not,” he retorted. This was another clear indication that he lacks a key attribute of good leaders—perception.
Although the plaintiffs accused the Riverside Sheriff’s Department of “repeatedly and violently striking and handcuffing” C.B., Bianco claimed he saw nothing in a video recording of the incident that would make him say, “Oh my god! What are you doing [to the officers involved].” A federal court obviously disagreed. Again, in my estimation, an indication of Bianco’s total lack of perception.
Several outlets have also reported Bianco’s establishment of a legal defense fund. This is not unusual for candidates running for a high profile office, although it is impossible to speculate whether the campaign was his only motive. However, when you consider the number of lawsuits against the county his actions have triggered since he was sworn in as sheriff, Bianco may need some kind of protection against lawsuits when he is left on the hook for actions he takes on his own without the purse of the county to cover him.
Meanwhile, Bianco’s gubernatorial campaign and supporters promote him around the state as “a pillar of strength” who is “brave and courageous,” and “an excellent negotiator who has superior abilities to defuse, deflect and redirect…” Redirect what? The post did not say, but whatever it is, he claims he does it for “reconciliation and peace.” Such proclamations make it clear to me that he is either delusional or totally lacks self-awareness.
Although members of the community have clamoured for oversight of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department under Bianco‘s leadership and the County Board of Supervisors had failed to act due to an alleged fear of losing campaign funding from police/sheriff unions, citizens are taking action on their own to make it happen. Community members have formed the Sheriff Accountability Coalition and are working to qualify a ballot initiative. The initiative calls for the creation of a civilian oversight board and a separate Office of Inspector General to monitor county jails and monitor the Riverside Sheriff’s Department.
If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to take a moment to sign the petition. If we truly want change, it is up to us to create it.
Of course this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.