On April 27, 2006, plaintiff Charles Dirks, a professor at Mission College in north San Fernando Valley, appeared at the sheriff’s office located on the campus to assist a student cadet, former plaintiff Yesenia Franco, with employment related issues. He claimed that he appeared at the office to exercise his protected constitutional right of free speech, but that he was wrongfully arrested and subjected to excessive force. Dirks, Franco, Lorena Lopez and Jesse Martinez originally sued the Los Angeles Community College District; the county of Los Angeles; the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca, acting in his personal capacity; Vice President Jose Ramirez; Jose Leyba; Sergeant Joe Grasso; Sergeant Andrew Magalleries; Deputy Michael McCarty; Security Officer Roxanne Chavez; Deputy Barker; Security Officer Kimberly Melandy; Security Officer Thomas McConnell; Deputy Ricky Baker; and Deputy Darren Inana. However, plaintiffs Franco, Lopez and Martinez were dismissed from the case. Defendants Ramirez, Leyba and the Los Angeles Community College District, as well as the county of Los Angeles, Baca, Magalleries, McCarty, Chavez, Barker, Melandy and McConnell, were also dismissed from the case prior to trial. In March 2009, the trial continued with only Dirks’ claims against Grasso, Baker and Inana. He alleged that their actions constituted unlawful arrest, excessive force and retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. The jury ultimately returned a defense verdict on excessive force, but was hung on the issues of unlawful arrest and retaliation. The case was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the matter was ultimately sent back to the federal court to be retried on the issues of unlawful arrest and retaliation. During the retrial, Dirks claimed he appeared at the sheriff’s station to exercise a protected constitutional right of free speech, but that he was immediately ordered to leave the sheriff’s station. He alleged that he was not boisterous, loud or illegally argumentative, and that he did not disrupt any legitimate or legal peace officer duty or activity at the sheriff’s station. He also alleged that he did not disrupt or interfere with the defendants’ ability to perform any official duties and at no time during the incident was Grasso engaged in authorized activity of a peace officer before the arrest. Dirks claimed that he attempted to comply with the order by Grasso to exit the sheriff’s station, but that he was physically battered prior to the commencement of any process of seizure or arrest, and before any reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause for arrest existed. He further claimed that three of the four deputies present at the time of his arrest could not identify the crime for which Grasso ordered the arrest. Thus, Dirks contended that the seizure was unreasonable because it was without warrant or reasonable suspicion, and the manner of the seizures was unreasonable because of the amount of force used. He also contended that the detention was unreasonable because he was improperly handcuffed in that the handcuffs were not double locked and were put on excessively tight, causing unreasonable suffering and injury during the detention. Dirks further contended that the arrest was unreasonable because it was without warrant or probable cause. He claimed that he was not warned that he was committing any crime or that he was about to be arrested, as well as was not told what he was to be arrested for. He also questioned whether the officers had the authority to arrest him and claimed that there were no circumstances that prevented these statutory advisements from taking place. Grasso, Baker and Inana denied Dirks’ allegations and contended that the plaintiff improperly disrupted the operation of a sheriff’s station. Thus, they claimed that Dirks was validly arrested and retained after he refused the numerous orders to leave the sheriff’s station. Defense counsel noted that the incident was videotaped., The retrial was a bifurcated; thus, damages were not before the court. Dirks initially claimed to his head, wrist, shoulder, cervical spine and leg. He also claimed emotional distress as a result of the incident. According to defense counsel, the plaintiff sought unspecified damages for his alleged . Defense counsel would have disputed the nature and extent of Dirks’ alleged and damages.