Civil Rights Litigation Clinic: Jorge A. Iniguez '23

Q: What matters to you and why?

While perhaps premature, I had my first existential crisis when I was in seventh grade. That day, I had a panic attack and was sent home very early. I started writing a journal to help prove to myself that every day was different and valuable and what I quickly realized was that the days that I cherished the most were always those where I helped someone. For example: yes, it was fun to eat ice cream, but it was even better when I could share that sweet treat with a friend; or, while it felt great to finish my math homework, it felt even better to be able to help someone finish theirs. I think from that point on my life was set on a trajectory to try and improve the lives of my community and of those around me. I believe improvement is exponential, and when we help someone, we help everyone—and that’s what matters to me.

Q: What is the significance of the CRLC in your law school experience?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clinic (CRLC) has been monumental to my time in law school as it has allowed me to learn first-hand what civil rights litigation looks like. The CRLC is a clinic offered by UCI that gives students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience on real civil rights litigation matters. I have been a part of the clinic for four semesters and have really enjoyed learning about litigation in a real-life setting with the support of my peers, the lawyers we work alongside, and my clinic professors, as well as the opportunity to gain a wealth of knowledge and hands-on experience about how civil rights litigation matters work.

The clinic supervisors, Paul Hoffman and Melanie Partow are very helpful, extremely knowledgeable, and great mentors and professors to have for this class. For example, the conversations we had about Martin v. Boise have been useful in navigating my job at Legal Services of Northern California where I help protect the housing rights of some of Sacramento's most vulnerable.

Q: Can you highlight a few memorable experiences you've had in the CRLC?

One of my favorite cases was the Doe v. Chiquita Banana case, which is an important human rights case, in the 11th Circuit, arising out of claims that Chiquita aided and abetted mass murder in Colombia by right-wing death squads.

When Professor Hoffman, was preparing for an oral argument in front of the Supreme Court, I was asked to conduct and present research on modus operandi evidentiary issues. Modus operandi refers to a method of operation or pattern of criminal behavior so distinctive that separate crimes or wrongful conduct are recognized as the conduct of the same person. In our case, we needed to ensure we were interpreting the case law on the matter correctly in order to bring in the evidence we needed to prove our case. In the end, the oral argument was a success and now we can bring in the evidence necessary at trial to ensure the families harmed are given adequate compensation. It was an amazing experience getting to collaborate with such a seasoned Supreme Court orator and seeing the entire process of how they prepare for oral arguments.

I believe improvement is exponential, and when we help someone, we help everyone—and that’s what matters to me.
- Jorge A. Iniguez '23

In addition to this case, I also worked on the OCDNA program, which is a case where the Clinic filed a taxpayer action challenging the OC District Attorney’s “Spit and Acquit” program and its creation of a DNA repository without any safeguards.

The idea behind the program is that alleged misdemeanants—that is people who have been charged and not convicted of a misdemeanor—can give the Orange County District Attorney a sample of their DNA in exchange for a positive plea bargain. In some cases, individuals may be able to get their cases dismissed by surrendering their DNA. This practice violates the constitutional standards regarding DNA collection. Additionally, in practice, prosecutors can be very coercive in getting waivers of rights. In my first semester with the clinic, I aided in drafting the initial filing brief. For the first brief, I was in charge of the waiver section, specifically the knowing and intelligent waiver standard. When we received a reply not in our favor our clinic appealed that decision and I helped write and coordinate those briefs. I also helped write the reply brief and aided in preparing the attorney who would speak at oral arguments in our Moots. It was inspiring to see first-hand that a dedicated team of citizens can challenge police practices that are unconstitutional.

FACCT (Factual Analysis Citizen Consulting Team) was another program I worked on, where UCI’s Civil Rights Litigation Clinic partnered up with UCI’s Criminal Justice Clinic to review cases where there was a claim of excessive force against the police.

In our teams, we reviewed a memorandum describing the incident as well as any evidence provided to us in order to present the information to the FACCT Team within Los Angeles District Attorney Gascon’s office. This work included reviewing information, creating diagrams to depict the events, and ultimately presenting the findings to the FAACT board for them to determine if the case should be re-opened against the officers. It was interesting to learn so much about police standards for excessive use of force and how we can ensure that police are not abusing their power.

Lastly, I worked on a case where we represented a woman experiencing homelessness who was arrested and removed from a public park in Fountain Valley.

At the time, the woman lived in a public park in Fountain Valley. The police there arrested and removed her from the park. She was representing herself pro se in an attempt to challenge the city's decision to remove her from the park and to remain there. Since she is unhoused she had to zoom into the court proceedings from a public Starbucks, when she had to leave the Starbucks, and thus the meeting, the proceedings continued without her. The clinic has joined the case to represent her and argue that the continuation of the hearing without her presence, as both plaintiff and counsel, was a violation of her rights. I have helped in conducting research on similar cases and drafting the appeals brief in order to advocate for a new hearing. The case is currently pending with the court. I am glad that we were able to provide support and help fight for her (ongoing) cause.

These are just a few of the significant cases I had the privilege to work on at the CRLC.