Federal Jury Awards $13.1 Million to Parents of Man Shot in the Back by Riverside County Deputy

On August 7, 2020, Jeffrey Monroy, a 33-year-old pool worker from Cathedral City, was shot and killed by a Riverside County sheriff's corporal on Tamarisk Lane in Rancho Mirage. He had been working a job with his father's pool service, became agitated and began asking people for a phone to call his brother for a ride. A resident reported him to 911 as suspicious, and Corporal Ruben Perez responded.

During the encounter Monroy stabbed Perez several times with a screwdriver, including in the neck. Monroy's brother Will, who had arrived, pulled the two apart and dragged Jeffrey about 20 feet from the confrontation. Perez then fired multiple times and struck Monroy in the back. Perez was treated at a hospital and recovered.

Monroy's parents, Longina Perez Monroy and David Monroy, sued Riverside County, Sheriff Chad Bianco and Perez in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They alleged excessive force under federal civil rights law and brought related claims for their son's death. The defendants denied any wrongdoing. Before trial, the Ninth Circuit rejected Perez's bid for qualified immunity, which sent the case on to a jury.

The nine-day trial in downtown Los Angeles began December 2, 2025. The family was represented by Houman Sayaghi and Neama Rahmani of West Coast Trial Lawyers, with co-counsel Kaveh Navab of Navab Law. Sayaghi told reporters there was no excuse for shooting Monroy multiple times in the back when he was no threat to the deputy. On December 11, 2025, the jury found that Perez used excessive and negligent deadly force. It also assigned 70 percent of the fault to Perez and 30 percent to Monroy for the stabbing.

The jury awarded $100,000 for Monroy's pain and suffering before he died, $4,000,000 for the loss of his life, and $4,500,000 to each parent for the loss of their son, for a total of $13.1 million. The court's final judgment, entered March 16, 2026, carried the full amount of the jury's damages, with no reduction for the comparative fault finding. Plaintiffs' counsel described it as the largest excessive-force verdict ever returned against the county.

A county spokesperson said after the verdict that the county disagreed with the result and would evaluate next steps. The docket shows a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed April 10, 2026, followed later that month by post-trial motions, including a motion for a new trial. The district court closed the case in September 2026, but the public docket does not show how the appeal and motions were resolved.