Filed Date: March 2, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This class action lawsuit alleged that the San Diego County Jail denied proper health accommodations to detainees. On March 2, 2020, a jail detainee filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff sued the State of California, San Diego County, the San Diego Sheriff's Department, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the San Diego County Sheriff, and the Attorney General of California. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction requiring meaningful access to legal resources in the county jail and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliance. The case was assigned to District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia and Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on April 6, 2020. On July 23, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, a motion for counsel, and motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The amended complaint added the Governor of California, the Mayor of San Diego, the Director of San Diego’s Office of Assigned Counsel, and a public defender as defendants. On August 4, 2020, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim and dismissed the motion for counsel because it was a civil case and no “exceptional circumstances” existed. The court also dismissed the motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and for failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted.
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his amended complaint on September 8, 2020. On September 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s dismissal with leave to amend was not final or appealable. On October 1, the plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandamus, which the Ninth Circuit denied on October 13.
On October 6, the plaintiff filed a motion for a final order in the district court. On October 14, the district court construed the motion for a final order as a voluntary dismissal, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed the voluntary dismissal on October 26, 2020. On August 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit reversed the voluntary dismissal and remanded to the district court, reasoning that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to warrant ordering defendants to file an answer. The sheriff and the county filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2021. The plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to file an amended complaint on December 14, which Judge Gallo granted on December 17. Because the plaintiffs still needed to file an amended complaint, Judge Gallo also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Two private firms and the ACLU of San Diego filed appearances on behalf of the plaintiff in December 2021. The plaintiff (now represented by counsel) filed a second amended complaint on February 9, 2022, which joined other detainees as plaintiffs and brought additional claims against the City of San Diego, Correctional Healthcare Partners, Tri-City Medical Center, Liberty Healthcare, Mid-America Health, an individual doctor, the San Diego County Probation Department, and twenty individuals under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the ADA, and California state law. The second amended complaint alleged preventable deaths caused by suicide, overdoses, homicide, and medical neglect; chronic and dangerous understaffing of medical professionals; unsanitary living conditions; failure to track and accommodate disabilities; denial of access to counsel; “deliberate indifference” in violation off the Eighth Amendment; and race discrimination. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the defendants to implement a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of harm, discrimination, and statutory violations. The plaintiffs also sought certification for a class of adults who are now or will be incarcerated in a San Diego County Jail facility, and a subclass for those who meet the ADA’s definition of “qualified individuals with a disability.”
The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed as defendants the State of California, the Governor of California, the Mayor of San Diego, the Director of San Diego’s Office of Assigned Counsel, the San Diego County Sheriff, the Attorney General of California, and three other individuals on February 11, 2022; Tri-City Medical Center on February 22; and Mid-America Health on July 7. On May 2, 2022, the plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
The defendant doctor who worked at the jail, Liberty Healthcare, the County of San Diego, and Correctional Healthcare Partners each filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 4, May 3, and May 9, respectively. Mid-America Health filed a motion for summary judgment on June 1. The parties agreed to dismiss Mid-America Health as a defendant on July 7, and the court thus found the motion for summary judgment moot on July 11.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification of an injunctive class on August 15, 2022. Judge Battaglia found that the fact that the plaintiffs were no longer incarcerated did not render their claims moot because their claims fell within the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading review” branch of the mootness doctrine. The court, however, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, failed to plead an injury, and requested overly broad relief. Because he denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Battaglia also declined to certify an injunctive class on mootness grounds.
The plaintiffs’ case suffered another setback on September 27, 2022, when the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and directed the plaintiffs to file a new complaint with more specific facts. Judge Battaglia dismissed the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs did not provide authority for the proposition that the cruel and unusual punishment provision extends to pretrial detainees and that the plaintiffs had an alternative path to vindicating their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against the county was dismissed with prejudice because a claim under the Unruh Act does not apply against counties.
On October 6, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice. The court granted the motion to reconsider on October 31 and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice, finding that the court had mistakenly believed the plaintiffs were all pre-trial detainees.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 18, which re-pleaded the Eighth Amendment claims and alleged more specific facts about the poor jail conditions, the plaintiffs’ disabilities, and the lack of access to medical care. The county filed a motion to dismiss this third amended complaint on December 23, 2022. On January 17, 2023, the court ordered the defendants to allow the plaintiffs’ counsel and experts to inspect the jail facilities.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and for provisional class certification on April 25, 2023. Two days later, the court partially granted the county’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. Judge Battaglia dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants over-incarcerate people with disabilities and left the rest of the claims intact.
The parties conducted an early neutral evaluation on May 24 and further settlement discussions on June 5, 8, 15, and 16. After these discussions, the parties and the court agreed on June 21 that: (1) the plaintiffs’ motion for provisional class certification should be granted for settlement purposes only, (2) the defendants must modify some showers and cells at Central Jail to comply with the ADA, (3) the defendants must improve intake procedures to ensure accessibility for incarcerated people with mobility disabilities, and (4) the defendants must improve accessibility to sign language interpreters for incarcerated people with hearing disabilities. The parties set out a schedule for the defendants’ implementation and the plaintiffs’ feedback regarding these remedial measures. Given the parties’ agreement, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot on June 21.
The parties conducted status conferences on July 12 and August 2. They also held several settlement conferences and issued multiple status reports between September and November 2023. The parties moved for class certification on October 24, which the court granted on November 3. The court certified additional subclasses for adults who are now or will be incarcerated in San Diego County Jail facilities and who either (1) have private counsel or are pursuing federal claims on a pro per basis or (2) are Black or Latinx.
On February 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit. The parties continued to hold settlement conferences and issued status reports. On December 12, Judge Battaglia approved the ADA settlement agreement between the parties and mandated the court have jurisdiction over the settlement. The settlement agreement mandates changes to the Jail's policies, procedures, and practices to better accommodate individuals with disabilities including those with mental health needs and intellectual disabilities. The settlement agreement also requires physical construction to jail facilities to ensure housing for people with disabilities.
The defendants filed for a motion for partial summary judgment on December 16, 2024.
On December 18 the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to seal documents produced in discovery. The court applied the two-step "good cause" analysis from In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, and found that that defendants repeatedly failed to show "particularized harm will result from disclosure of [the] information to the public" and that "broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test". The motion was granted in part and denied in part, with CIRB reports and staffing reports remaining confidential due to pending appellate review and security concerns respectively, while medical information, custody records, and employee identities were ordered released with specified redactions⁻. The case proceeded with modified confidentiality protections that balanced public interest in transparency with legitimate privacy and security concerns.
On January 10, 2025, the parties submitted a joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement to resolve the plaintiffs' third claim for relief.
On February 3, 2025, defendants submitted a reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. This reply brief contained evidence and arguments that, according to plaintiffs, were not attached to any pleading. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 10, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for leave to file limited objections and to strike the improper evidence and argument. On February 25, 2025, the court ruled on the motion, stating that defendants' reply did include new evidence and arguments. The court ordered defendants to produce this evidence by March 3, 2025.
On March 3, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of parties' settlement agreement as to plaintiffs' third claim. The court set a fairness hearing for July 31, 2025.
On May 6, 2025, the parties' submitted a joint motion for settlement for final approval of the ADA settlement. On July 31, 2025, the court granted the motion for settlement On August 4, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. In the settlement, the parties agreed that the defendants will make additional ADA facility modifications at multiple facilities, add neutral experts to issue reports on compliance, and add or continue a number of policies, procedures, and practices to protect ADA rights. These include providing equal access to programs, services, and activities consistent with the ADA and providing a means for incarcerated people with disabilities to request disability accommodations and grievance denial.
On August 8, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for interim attorneys' fees, awarding a total of $1,588,887.21 in fees and $427,496.18 in costs after applying significant reductions to align with local market rates and account for inefficiencies in litigation conduct.
On August 11, 2025 the court denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment because the defendants’ did not show any evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination. Whereas the plaintiff presented evidence of unequal racial treatment through an expert. When the Defendants claimed that the plaintiff’s claim did not apply to them, the Plaintiff was able to show evidence that this was incorrect, and the claim did apply to them.
On October 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to limit administrative separation for class members with serious mental illness. The motion sought to prohibit the placement of class members with serious mental illness in the Jail's Administrative Separation units absent exigent circumstances. The plaintiff's mental health expert filed a declaration that the “conditions in the San Diego County Jail’s Administrative Separation units are among the harshest and most restrictive forms of solitary confinement I have seen in over 35 years of practice.”
On December 19, 2025, the court granted in part the defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding 34 CIRB Reports. The court held that the CIRB Reports were privileged under Greer, which held that attorney-client privilege applied to the reports in their entirety. 127 F.4th at 1227. However, given that the plaintiff's counsel redacted all of the information on the public docket, the court denied with prejudice the motion insofar as it sought remedial measures.
On December 30, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the plaintiffs ex parte motion to file a supplemental declaration, and denied as moot the plaintiffs motion to seal. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, noting that defendants had undertaken ongoing efforts to address mental health needs through policy revisions, increased staffing, and multi-disciplinary wellness checks, which precluded a finding of deliberate indifference. The court denied all requested relief, allowing the underlying litigation to continue without preliminary injunctive relief.
The next day, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and granted the plaintiff's motion to seal. The plaintiffs sought to reopen discovery following two deaths of incarcerated persons in San Diego County jails in July 2025. The plaintiffs wanted discovery related to these deaths for remedy development regarding their mental health claims about defendants' placement of people with mental health needs in punitive Administrative Segregation (AdSeg) units. The Magistrate Judge applied the six-factor test from City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp. and found that while some factors favored reopening discovery, the requested discovery was too broad and plaintiffs had not established good cause⁻. The Court denied the motion to reopen discovery without prejudice but granted plaintiffs' motion to seal, finding good cause was satisfied because the information came from ADA rosters previously ordered to be produced as "Attorney's Eyes Only". The Court required plaintiffs to file a redacted version of counsel's declaration by January 14, 2026.
On February 12, 2026, the parties submitted a joint motion regarding mental health issues and resolving the plaintiffs' second claim for relief. On February 17, 2026, the court granted the parties' joint motion and ordered the parties to submit a mental health settlement agreement within thirty days. On February 24, the parties amended the joint motion and the court granted it the following day.
On March 3, 2026, the parties submitted a motion for settlement for preliminary approval of mental health settlement agreement resolving the second claim for relief. On March 12, 2026, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement as to the plaintiffs' second claim for relief. The proposed settlement requires the establishment of clinical levels of care, expansion of the County's mental health beds and staffing, and mental health pre-clearance in the County's solitary confinement units. Specifically, the agreement makes significant changes to policies and procedures to improve mental health care, establishes clinical levels of care, reforms the Jail Administration Separation units, expands OPSD program to further reduce the use of solitary confinement, includes provisions for the review of the County's healthcare contracts, appoints a neutral expert, and requires class counsel participation. The court set a final fairness hearing for July 2026.
As of April 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Michelle Landry (7/12/2022)
Hannah Juge (10/18/2022)
Sophia Acker (11/7/2023)
Danica Fong (1/30/2025)
Renuka Wagh (4/20/2025)
Kameron Smith (10/15/2025)
Haleigh Knowles (4/12/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16922109/parties/dunsmore-v-state-of-california/
Battaglia, Anthony Joseph (California)
Anderson, Eric D. (California)
Chartoff, Hannah M. (California)
Bloodworth, Brian T. (California)
Coleman, Susan E (California)
Anderson, Eric D. (California)
Chartoff, Hannah M. (California)
Fischer, Aaron J. (California)
Freedman, Michael L. (California)
Grunfeld, Gay Crosthwait (California)
Holston, Benjamin Wycliffe (California)
Kiefer, Oliver M. (California)
Markovitz, Jonathan Paul (California)
Neal, Isabella Maria (California)
Shinn-Krantz, Marc J. (California)
Bloodworth, Brian T. (California)
Dailey, Michael J. (California)
Dawson, James Richard (California)
Doggett, Jeffrey Scott (California)
Ghoury, Salayha Khaliq (California)
Grohman, Christopher Thomas (California)
Hightower, Sharon L. (California)
Inman, Steven Paul (California)
Kish, Juan Fernando (California)
Moriarty, Marilyn R (California)
O'Sullivan, Matthew Patrick (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16922109/dunsmore-v-state-of-california/
Last updated April 14, 2026, 10 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 2, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A class of all adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in a San Diego County Jail facility, and subclasses of those incarcerated people who (1) have a legally defined "disability"; (2) have private counsel or are pursuing claims on a pro per basis; or (3) are Black or Latinx.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
County of San Diego
San Diego County Probation Department
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of California 3:20-cv-00406
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 20-55942
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 20-56135
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 20-56221
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 24-00894
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Sanitation / living conditions
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Mental health care, unspecified
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Case Summary of Dunsmore v. State of California, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43322/ (last updated 4/12/2026).