ONTARIO, Calif. — Carlos Jimenez, a California resident and U.S. citizen, filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California on Nov. 6, 2026, after being shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in October 2025.
According to KVCR News, Jimenez filed the lawsuit against Eusebio Ortiz, the ICE officer he identified as having shot him, two U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, an FBI special agent and San Bernardino County.
Jimenez is seeking approximately $25 million in compensation from the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows individuals to seek damages for certain wrongful or negligent acts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.
Jimenez alleges that Ortiz violated his Fourth Amendment rights through the use of excessive force. He also alleges that federal agents engaged in misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case brought against him.
His claims against San Bernardino County concern an alleged failure to provide adequate medical care while he was in custody.
According to Jimenez’s account, he was driving to work in Ontario when he observed ICE agents stopping someone near a school bus stop. He said he attempted to warn the agents that children would soon be arriving in the area.
Jimenez claims he then drove away, and Ortiz fired into his vehicle through the rear passenger window, striking him in the shoulder.
He subsequently drove home before being transported to Riverside Community Hospital for medical treatment.
Jimenez also alleges that federal agents located him at the hospital and removed him from his bed while he was still bleeding from his injuries.
He claims FBI agents questioned him before transferring him to West Valley Detention Center, where he spent approximately 20 hours in custody without receiving medical treatment despite repeated requests for assistance.
Jimenez alleges that he continues to suffer from his injuries, including bullet fragments remaining in his body, as well as emotional distress resulting from the shooting.
The Department of Homeland Security and federal prosecutors have offered a different account of the incident. They contend that Ortiz acted in self-defense because Jimenez allegedly reversed his vehicle toward ICE officers.
The conflicting accounts place the circumstances surrounding the shooting, including whether Jimenez posed a threat to the officers, at the center of the civil rights lawsuit.
Jimenez was initially charged with assaulting a federal officer with his vehicle, but the criminal case was dismissed before trial.
In a statement to KVCR, the U.S. Attorney’s Office maintained that probable cause supported the charge against Jimenez but said prosecutors had sought a diversion agreement rather than proceeding to trial.
“He has no criminal history, and diversion would avoid him suffering a criminal conviction, which would carry serious, lifelong consequences,” the statement said.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department also disputed Jimenez’s allegations concerning his treatment in custody.
The department said its records showed that Jimenez received adequate medical care while detained, contradicting his account.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Jimenez’s attorneys sought records of an officer’s text messages related to the shooting.
Prosecutors denied that the messages existed, but a judge ordered them either to produce the messages or submit a sworn statement from the officer affirming that they did not exist.
Jimenez’s civil rights attorney, Greg Jackson, alleged that the government’s decision to prosecute his client was intended to conceal the agents’ conduct and constituted an abuse of legal process.
“The criminal proceeding was initiated and maintained without probable cause,” Jackson said. “Carlos was complying with the officers’ instructions and posed no threat.”
On the same day the court issued its order concerning the text messages, the defense and prosecution signed an agreement that resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case.
The agreement required Jimenez to withdraw all pending motions but did not require him to acknowledge wrongdoing.
Jackson questioned the timing of the dismissal and suggested that prosecutors wanted to avoid further scrutiny of the officer’s communications.
“My personal opinion is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was very concerned about what might turn up in Ortiz’s phone. Alternatively, they were concerned about what he would have to sign under penalty of perjury and wanted to avoid that,” Jackson said.
Following the dismissal, questions remain about the circumstances of the shooting, the conduct of the federal agents involved and whether any disciplinary action was taken.
“We still deserve answers about why he was shot, how the ICE agents involved conducted themselves, and whether those agents faced any disciplinary action for their dangerous and aggressive conduct,” U.S. Rep. Norma Torres said.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
