Case Background
Richard Matus, Jr., 29, was a pretrial detainee at the Cois M. Byrd Detention Center in Murrieta, California. He died in custody on August 11, 2022. His estate, his two minor children, and his mother filed suit. They named the County of Riverside, its Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Chad Bianco, jail supervisors, an investigator, and three deputies. The Defendants maintained that no earlier man-down call reached Deputy Rojas.
Cause
The Court read its findings of fact to the jury. Under those findings, Matus shared Cell 41 of the E-pod with Anthony Hernandez. A primary deputy in a control room monitored the pod by window, video, and cell intercoms. That deputy could answer only one intercom call at a time.
On the night of August 10, 2022, Matus and Hernandez drank pruno, an improvised jail alcohol, in other inmates' cells. Matus answered a head count during a safety check that ended at 10:55 p.m. He showed no sign of distress. Video showed him walking in his cell at about 11:11 p.m.
Later, Hernandez saw Matus holding his chest and used the intercom. The parties disputed how many calls he made. Both sides agreed that a man-down call reached Deputy Angel Rojas at about 11:28 p.m. Deputy Brendon Thompson reached the cell a minute later. Under jail policy, he waited for backup. Staff opened the door at about 11:30 p.m. and began CPR.
Injury
Medical staff and paramedics worked on Matus for about 45 minutes. Witnesses testified that staff gave him multiple doses of Narcan. He was pronounced dead at about 12:15 a.m. on August 11, 2022. The autopsy found a blood alcohol level of 0.163 percent and 4.1 nanograms of fentanyl per milliliter of blood. The parties did not dispute that a fentanyl overdose caused his death. Matus left behind a 13-year-old daughter, G.M., a 9-year-old son, R.M., and his mother, Lisa Matus.
Damages
The Plaintiffs sought wrongful death damages for the loss of Matus's love, companionship, and support. The estate sought survival damages for his pain, suffering, and loss of life. They also sought funeral and burial costs, punitive damages against the individual Defendants, attorney's fees, and costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Estate of Richard Matus, Jr. | G.M. | R.M. | Lisa Matus
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christian M. Contreras | Denisse O. Gastelum | Selene Estrada-Villela
Defendant(s): County of Riverside | Riverside County Sheriff's Department | Sheriff Chad Bianco | Edward Delgado | James Krachmer | David Holm | Patrick Lindo | Angel Rojas | Mario Correa | Brendon Thompson [Terminated: 08/19/2026] | Justin Williams
Counsel for Defendant(s): Anthony M. Sain | Abigail McLaughlin | Emily B. Suhr | Tracy Marie Gastelum | Aaron Edward Kircher | Lilit Arabyan [Terminated: 10/17/2024] | Magdalena R. Casas [Terminated: 01/18/2025] | Tori Lyn Noelani Bakken [Terminated: 02/25/2024]
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Second Amended Complaint raised 11 claims. They included federal civil rights claims for failure to protect, denial of medical care, and loss of familial relationship. The Plaintiffs also pleaded municipal and supervisory liability, negligence, and medical malpractice. They added Bane Act and Government Code Section 845.6 claims.
In June 2025, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' safety check and contraband theories. She allowed the intercom theory to proceed. On the parties' stipulation, the Court dismissed the emotional distress and declaratory relief claims with prejudice. During trial, the Plaintiffs dismissed Deputy Thompson. The Court then granted judgment as a matter of law to Deputy Mario Correa.
At trial, Hernandez testified that a voice answered his first man-down call and told him to stop pressing the button. He said later calls rang unanswered until a neighbor's call got through.
Defense
The Defendants asserted comparative fault, governmental immunities, and qualified immunity in their Answer. At trial, Deputy Rojas maintained that the 11:28 p.m. call was the only man-down call he received. Defense counsel told jurors, “You can’t help with a problem you don’t know about.” He argued that “sometimes you can’t save a man from himself,” citing the fentanyl and alcohol Matus ingested. The Defendants added that medical aid began within about three minutes of the call.
Expert Testimony
Emergency medicine physician Martin Chenevert, M.D., testified for the Plaintiffs. He said Narcan reverses a fentanyl overdose if given in time. He testified that a response to the first man-down call likely would have saved Matus. He based the timing on Hernandez's account.
Roger Clark, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's lieutenant, testified for the Plaintiffs on jail practices. He estimated that 13 to 15 minutes passed before deputies reached Matus. On cross, he agreed a deputy cannot respond to a problem he does not know about.
Defense expert Robert Fonzi is a former San Bernardino County undersheriff. He testified that the video showed nothing that should have alerted the booth deputy before 11:28 p.m. He found no violation of standard jail practices.
Forensic pathologist Matthew Miller, M.D., called by the Defendants, confirmed fentanyl and ethanol toxicity as the cause of death. He said the fentanyl level could be four times a fatal level for someone without tolerance. He could not say when Matus took the drug.
Jury Verdict
On August 25, 2026, a unanimous seven-member jury returned its verdict. It found that Deputy Rojas did not deliberately ignore an intercom call about Matus. However, the jury found that Rojas unreasonably ignored one or more such calls. It found his conduct a substantial factor in Matus's death.
The jury also found Matus negligent. It assigned 60 percent of the responsibility to Matus and 40 percent to Rojas. On the Section 845.6 claim, jurors found Rojas did not know or have reason to know Matus needed immediate care.
The jury awarded $13.5 million. It included $500,000 for pre-death pain and suffering and $2 million for Matus's death. The jury awarded G.M. and R.M. each $1.5 million in past and $2.5 million in future damages. It awarded Lisa Matus $2 million in past and $1 million in future damages.
Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes entered judgment on September 25, 2026. Rojas prevailed on the federal claims, and the County prevailed on municipal liability. She reduced the negligence award by 60 percent to $5.4 million. She entered that judgment against Rojas, the County, and the Sheriff's Department. No punitive damages were awarded.
Post-trial Motions
On October 23, 2026, the County, the Sheriff's Department, and Rojas moved for relief under Rules 50(b) and 59. They argued that the jury's "No" answers on deliberate ignoring and on knowledge defeated the negligence claim. They also argued that the "unreasonable" ignoring theory was never properly pleaded and lacked substantial evidence. The Plaintiffs applied to tax costs against the County, and the Defendants objected.
On October 26, 2026, the Court struck the motion because its hearing information was missing, incorrect, or untimely. On October 28, the Defendants asked the Court to accept a corrected motion with an amended hearing notice. The costs application remained pending.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
