Pro Bono
Civil Rights & Criminal Justice
At Gibson Dunn, protecting the civil rights of the most vulnerable members of our communities is a cornerstone of our pro bono practice, underpinning many of the pro bono matters we take on each year. This work often touches on the deep flaws that run through the criminal justice system — flaws that often disadvantage people of color, women, and those lacking in financial means. In recognition of this fact, we also remain dedicated to addressing those systemic issues and work to create a system of justice that truly does guarantee equal justice under the law for all.
In 2008, Jose Ramirez walked into prison a healthy man. Nearly a decade later, Mr. Ramirez was rolled out of prison in a wheelchair, severely disabled and in constant pain. In those intervening years, Mr. Ramirez received two botched back surgeries that relegated him to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. After the surgeries, his repeated, desperate pleas for medical care and disability accommodations were routinely denied. Mr. Ramirez’s complaints were met by indifference and violence. On one occasion, when Mr. Ramirez complained about his conditions of confinement, three prison guards responded by throwing Mr. Ramirez out of his wheelchair and savagely beating him. Instead of reprimanding the officers, the prison disciplined Mr. Ramirez and placed him in solitary confinement.
Mr. Ramirez filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of New York against the prison guards and the prison’s medical director pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive use of force and deficient medical care claims under the Eighth Amendment. In 2018, the Court dismissed Mr. Ramirez’s deficient medical care claim against the prison’s medical director. In 2019, the Chief Counsel of the S.D.N.Y. Office of Pro Se Litigation turned to Gibson Dunn, asking the Firm to take on Mr. Ramirez’s case pro bono.
Appearing as Mr. Ramirez’s pro bono counsel, Gibson Dunn convinced the Court to reopen discovery. Gibson Dunn then filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to reassert Mr. Ramirez’s dismissed deficient medical care claim, and to bring a new Eighth Amendment inhumane conditions of confinement claim and new Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. The Government vigorously opposed the motion. In December 2020, U.S. District Judge Vincent Briccetti issued a 19-page decision granting the motion for leave to amend in its entirety. The S.D.N.Y. Office of Pro Se Litigation featured a story about Gibson Dunn’s win on its website.
Gibson Dunn then pursued additional discovery and successfully moved to compel the disclosure of internal prison documents, winning the motion during oral argument. Gibson Dunn deposed several witnesses, including the prison guards and medical directors, and retained a renowned orthopedic surgeon as an expert witness. In lieu of filing a responsive expert report, the Government requested that the parties enter settlement negotiations.
On July 10, 2023, Gibson Dunn obtained a $110,000 settlement for Mr. Ramirez. Gibson Dunn was proud to achieve justice for Mr. Ramirez and obtain compensation from the Government for the deplorable treatment he received as a severely disabled inmate.
In 2016, Gibson Dunn’s client, Shane Love, witnessed Pasadena police officers kill Reginald Thomas, who had raised Mr. Love as his son from the age of one. Mr. Love filed a § 1983 lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the killing violated his due-process rights to a relationship with his father. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of Article III standing on the theory that Mr. Thomas was not Mr. Love’s biological father and had never formally adopted him. Mr. Love refiled his due process claim in California court, as parties have the option to do after an Article III dismissal. Yet the City of Pasadena removed the case back to federal court and asserted that issue preclusion prevented Mr. Love from relitigating his standing. The second federal district court accepted that preclusion argument and again dismissed the due process claim.
Gibson Dunn began representing Mr. Love on appeal and argued that the City of Pasadena had waived its preclusion defense by removing the case back to federal court, that issue preclusion does not apply to Article III standing anyway, and that Mr. Love should have his day in either federal or state court on the merits in all events. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Mr. Love finally will have an opportunity to litigate the merits of his due process claim on remand in the district court.
Deon Jones, a Los Angeles-based performance artist, entrepreneur, and Truman Scholar, grew up in Wiggins, Mississippi, where he witnessed and was subjected to rampant anti-Black racism. He has chosen to dedicate his adult life to serving as a leader and voice for his communities, using his work to help spread messages of inclusivity, social justice, and equality. He counts among his mentors the late Congressman John Lewis, who instilled in him the deep-seated belief that he had a responsibility to stand up and fight against inequality.
On the afternoon of May 30, 2020, Mr. Jones was engaging in a peaceful protest in Los Angeles in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. As protestors began to march, LAPD officers outfitted in riot gear arrived, causing the scene to become increasingly chaotic. Mr. Jones and his friend sought refuge in the parking lot of a nearby Trader Joe’s. While peacefully filming the scene with his phone in the parking lot, Mr. Jones was suddenly shot in the face by Officer Peter Bueno with a projectile from a weapon known as a 40mm “less-lethal” launcher. The projectile broke two bones in Mr. Jones’ face and was millimeters away from blinding him, or even worse, killing him.
Mr. Jones brought this civil rights lawsuit to hold the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Chief of the LAPD, and LAPD Officer Bueno accountable for their egregious and unconstitutional conduct on May 30, 2020. When Mr. Jones filed his initial Complaint in the Central District of California on December 9, 2020, he did not know the identity of his shooter. It was only after the City and the LAPD were ordered by the Court to produce critically important documents to Mr. Jones, including documents related to the LAPD’s internal investigation into the shooting, that Mr. Jones was finally able to identify Officer Bueno as his shooter— almost a year after filing his initial Complaint. Mr. Jones’ case then survived multiple motions to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment before proceeding to trial. Mr. Jones also rejected a settlement offer from the City, an offer that would turn out to be less than what Mr. Jones was awarded at trial.
On February 28, 2023, trial commenced before an eight-person jury, with the Honorable Fred W. Slaughter presiding. The trial featured body-worn camera videos that captured the events of the day, including videos showing Officer Bueno using excessive force against Mr. Jones and other protesters. The trial also featured testimony from eyewitnesses of the shooting and LAPD officers and other witnesses who testified it violates LAPD policy to shoot people in the face and otherwise engage in excessive uses of force.
After listening to four days of testimony, the jury deliberated for approximately five hours before returning a unanimous verdict in favor of Mr. Jones on his Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Bueno. The jury awarded Mr. Jones a total of $375,000, consisting of $250,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000 in punitive damages. In awarding Mr. Jones punitive damages, the jury concluded Officer Bueno’s shooting of Mr. Jones was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Mr. Jones’ rights.
As reported on the front page of the Los Angeles Times, this verdict is “the first verdict of its kind since mass protests swept Los Angeles in 2020,” with several other similar lawsuits ending in settlement with no acknowledgement of any wrongdoing by the City of Los Angeles or the officers involved. This verdict in favor of Mr. Jones helps pave the way for future protesters to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights without fear of police violence and retaliation.
In July 2023, Gibson Dunn announced the settlement of the remainder of Mr. Jones’ case. The officer has agreed to forego any appeal of the jury’s verdict, ensuring the verdict will continue to stand as a national message of accountability for police misconduct. The City has also agreed in the settlement to pay Mr. Jones additional damages to avoid a second trial that would have likely been held next year. That trial would have addressed and further exposed the City and LAPD’s historic abuses against civil rights protesters like Mr. Jones. Rather than proceed to that second trial, the City agreed to pay Mr. Jones $860,000 to resolve all claims—more than double the amount the jury awarded against the officer that shot Mr. Jones. The team that litigated this case won Gibson Dunn’s 2023 Frank Wheat Award in recognition of their outstanding work.
Several years ago, the firm launched a collaboration with Promise of Justice Initiative, a New Orleansbased nonprofit working to repair the systemic harms caused by so-called Jim Crow juries, which allowed individuals to be convicted of crimes by non-unanimous juries in Louisiana for over 100 years. More than 80% of the over 2,000 people still imprisoned due to Jim Crow juries are Black, and most are serving life sentences. The Supreme Court held the practice unconstitutional in 2020, but subsequently decided that decision would not apply retroactively—leaving those already convicted by Jim Crow juries prior to 2020 without hope for relief.
One of our clients, B.T., was convicted by a nonunanimous, unconstitutional jury in 1983. He was only 19 years old. Over the dissenting votes of two jurors—who, like B.T., were Black—B.T. was found guilty of an alleged armed robbery and sentenced to ninety-nine years of hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension. Effectively, B.T. received a life sentence despite important mitigating facts: the alleged robbery was of $400, he had never before been accused of a violent crime, he had lived a difficult childhood, no one was physically injured during the alleged robbery, and two jurors had reasonable doubt he was guilty at all. After spending the past forty years incarcerated in Louisiana state prisons, Gibson Dunn successfully advocated on his behalf and B.T. received an amended sentence reduced to time served. He was released as a free man in November 2023. B.T. entered a three-year reentry program that will provide comprehensive resources and support as he adjusts to life outside of incarceration. B.T.—who is known by those around him for his selflessness, wisdom, and unwavering optimism—is excelling in the program.