Case: California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
4:23-cv-04155 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Aug. 16, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged systemic sexual abuse at a federal low-security women's prison in Dublin, California.
On August 16, 2023, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, along with eight women incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin (FCI Dublin), brought a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the United States of America, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the BOP Director, FCI Dublin’s warden, and 12 named individuals employed as officers at FCI Dublin. Represented by Rights Behind Bars, the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of people incarcerated at FCI Dublin, alleging that all current and future individuals incarcerated at FCI Dublin faced continuing harm due to the prison's failure to protect prisoners from sexual abuse by staff. Individual prisoners also sued for monetary damages under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. § 7102, and through Bivens actions for federal constitutional violations.
The plaintiffs claimed that BOP had been aware of allegations of sexual abuse by staff at FCI Dublin for decades and yet had failed to investigate or prevent misconduct. The plaintiffs also alleged that prison staff failed to keep reports of sexual abuse confidential and retaliated against those who reported abuse by placing them in solitary confinement, initiating unjustified strip and cell searches, and transferring them to facilities far from support networks. The plaintiffs asserted that the sexual abuse and systematic failure to prevent harm violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the right to personal security found in the Fifth Amendment's substantive Due Process guarantees. In the complaint, the plaintiffs also noted that FCI Dublin had previously been the subject of investigation by a U.S. Department of Justice working group and a Senate subcommittee. They noted also that seven former FCI Dublin officials were convicted or pled guilty to criminal sexual abuse charges, including the former warden, and that one former official still awaited trial. The case was assigned to District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction simultaneously with their complaint. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs did not adequately assert constitutional violations and did not demonstrate sufficiently imminent or likely harm because FCI Dublin, under new leadership, no longer employed the "bad actors" and had improved prison conditions. Because criminal proceedings against various officers are pending, the court stayed all requests for individual damages until July 2024.
Shortly before an evidentiary hearing in late December, the plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency order directing FCI Dublin to allow plaintiffs’ counsel more time to prepare their witnesses for the upcoming hearing. Plaintiffs’ counsel was concerned that their clients had been “conspicuously and inexplicably targeted by strip searches, cell searches and confiscation of legal papers” and that FCI Dublin was planning on transferring some of their witnesses to other facilities. One potential witness who had earlier agreed to meet with plaintiffs’ counsel and testify refused to do so after notice of the strip search. In response, Judge Rogers issued an order on December 30, 2023, directing the plaintiffs not to transfer any person on the witness lists until further court order.
The court convened an emergency hearing on January 2, 2024, to address alleged retaliation. Given the severity of the retaliation allegations, the court requested the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to attend. During the hearing, the court heard from nine FCI Dublin officials and fourteen inmates.
After the hearing, Judge Rogers made an unannounced visit to FCI Dublin on February 14, 2024. She spent nine hours touring the prison, including medical services, dentist's office, various housing units, the cafeteria during lunch, the call center, the commissary, and the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”). Judge Rogers also toured the satellite camp at FCI Dublin. During her visit, the judge spoke confidentially to at least one hundred inmates, as well as correctional staff, medical staff, and counselors. On February 16, 2024, Judge Rogers issued an order addressing conditions she had observed that she deemed in need of immediate attention. She ordered the defendants to fix all showers, have a contractor inspect the facility for natural gas leaks, black mold, and asbestos, and distribute second blankets to people incarcerated in facilities without heat. The final issue was addressed in a separate attachment under seal.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2024, Judge Rogers issued an order to show cause for why defendants should not be held in contempt or sanctioned for failure to follow the court's order not to transfer any witnesses. Shortly before the visit, the judge learned through news reports that one of the prisoners who testified during a January evidentiary hearing about sexual abuse had been placed in the SHU and then transferred to a separate prison in Los Angeles. In the SHU, she was allegedly denied basic hygiene items and embarked on a hunger strike before she was transferred on February 6, 2024.
The defendants' response was that they had misunderstood the court's order not to transfer witnesses as applying only to the lead-up to the evidentiary hearing, that the transfer was made for legitimate safety and security concerns, and that the plaintiffs did not object to the transfer. The plaintiffs replied that they were not provided with the full facts surrounding the transfer or given access to the transferee until after the transfer. The plaintiffs argued that placement in the SHU and the transfer was initiated by one of the officers against whom the inmate testified and that the defendants violated other procedural requirements consistent with prior allegations of retaliation.
A hearing regarding the issue was held by the court on February 27, 2024. During that hearing, the court indicated a strong likelihood of appointing a special master to investigate claims. After the hearing, Judge Rogers discharged her contempt and sanctions order.
The FBI sent agents to FCI Dublin on the morning of March 11, 2024. The facility’s leadership and a captain were walked off the facility premises. Later that day, BOP notified the court that it had replaced executive employees–the Acting Warden, an Associate Warden, the Satellite Camp Administrator, and the Acting Captain.
On March 15, 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and their motion for preliminary injunction in part. 723 F.Supp.3d 712. The court also said it would appoint a special master, as plaintiffs had requested, to address the ongoing retaliation issues. The court certified plaintiffs' requested class of "[a]ll people who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at FCI Dublin and subject to FCI Dublin's uniform policies, customs, and practices concerning sexual assault, including those policies, customs, and practices related to care in the aftermath of an assault and protection from retaliation for reporting an assault." The court analyzed the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction under the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), including that the injunction be narrowly drawn and set to expire after 90 days unless the court finds that a permanent injunction is required. While the court acknowledged BOP's efforts to install more cameras and implement a pilot phone program to address the risk of sexual misconduct, those changes were deemed insufficient to counter FCI Dublin's deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' risk of sexual abuse and inadequate medical and mental health services for survivors. The court found BOP's response to allegations of sexual assault by staff woefully insufficient, and the health services understaffed, despite the introduction of a rape crisis center. The court also found that the plaintiffs' First Amendment claim was likely to succeed on the merits due to FCI Dublin's failure to address the retaliatory environment. The court denied the plaintiffs' requests for court monitoring of communication, the fixing of the privacy screens of computers, and the return of non-contraband items seized from individuals' cells during searches.
The court appointed a Special Master on April 5, 2024. The Special Master, Wendy Still, most recently served as Chief Probation Officer of the Alameda County Probation Department. This marked the first time a court had appointed a Special Master to monitor a BOP facility.
On April 15, 2024, BOP issued a public statement that FCI Dublin would be closed because it was not meeting the government's standards. The court held a sealed status conference on April 23, 2024, concerning the winding down of operations at FCI Dublin. According to an order issued by the court on May 7, 2024, the closure announcement was made without informing the court. The Special Master expressed concerns with the immediate initiation of transfers for incarcerated persons without consideration of medical clearance or eligibility for community placements. The court therefore ordered all transportation of incarcerated people halted, with closure proceedings to be supervised by the court. The court also ordered the provision of a monthly staffing report to the court and Special Master from each facility to which FCI Dublin class members were transferred, maintenance of a tracking roster created for the class members, and other reporting measures.
On June 11, 2024, the ACLU of Northern California, The Appeal, Victoria Law, and the First Amendment Coalition, represented by the ACLU and Victoria Law, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of unsealing court records. Judge Rogers granted intervention on July 26, 2024, and allowed a number of documents to be unsealed.
Judge Rogers entered an order on July 1, 2024, finding that BOP had still failed to correct the violation of the constitutional rights experienced by those incarcerated at FCI Dublin. Noting that the injunctive relief previously ordered was soon to expire, she ordered that the relief be extended an additional 90 days into early October.
Following the closure of FBI Dublin, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the facility’s closure rendered continued intervention by the courts unnecessary. Judge Rogers denied the motion on September 5, 2024, holding that “[t]he notion that the constitutional injuries alleged by FCI Dublin’s [incarcerated population] were comprehensively remedied by the facility’s closure strains credulity.” Judge Rogers concluded her opinion by reiterating that the preliminary injunctive relief remained in force and the Special Master’s appointment remained valid.
In November 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle all claims for injunctive relief, and in early December 2024, the plaintiffs informed the court of a proposed class settlement agreement. Judge Rogers granted preliminary approval on December 20, 2024. In her order, Judge Rogers also revised the class definition to include “all people who were incarcerated at FCI Dublin between March 15, 2024 and May 1, 2024, and all named Plaintiffs.” Judge Rogers also noted that during the hearing on the preliminary approval, she had discussed “at length” her concerns with the settlement. She ordered the parties to work to address her concerns and file a supplement addressing them by January 24, 2025.
On February 13, 2025, only weeks after the newly-installed Trump Administration took control of the federal government, the government filed a motion seeking to delay approval of the settlement agreement. In their motion, the government asserted that “the recent change in administration, the change in key personnel, and the issuance of Executive Orders and Attorney General Memos that may impact some provisions in the Consent Decree, independently necessitate a continuance of the final approval hearing. Judge Rogers denied the motion on February 19th.
During the approval hearing, attorneys from the government objected to two provisions in the proposed settlement that they indicated were contrary to the policies of the new Trump Administration–one allowing transgender inmates to wear gender-affirming clothing and another prohibiting BOP from using immigration status to deny release. Judge Rogers rejected these objections and formally approved the settlement on February 27, 2025. The settlement mandated that BOP publicly acknowledge the abuse that occurred at FCI Dublin; provided for the appointment of a Monitor to oversee implementation and issue reports; established mechanisms to ensure proper designation and credit-earning for class members, facilitated the release of class members to community placement as soon as possible; provided for medical and mental health care to be provided in class members' primary languages; restricted the use of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and expanded privileges for those in SHU; improved processes for reporting staff abuse and retaliation; and enhanced class members' access to counsel.
The named plaintiffs informed the court on February 11, 2024, that they had reached settlements with the federal government resolving all individual claims, causes of action, and related issues for monetary relief only. Pursuant to the settlements, the named plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief were dismissed as moot on March 18, 2025.
The joint consent decree went into effect on March 31, 2025. Notably, the decree extended to any facility in which former Dublin inmates were held. As of July 2, 2025, the decree spanned sixteen BOP facilities. Over the following months several class members filed individual motions related to the consent decree and the conditions of their individual confinement. On April 17, 2025, a class member housed at Federal Medical Center-Carswell filed a motion for enforcement of the consent decree in light of the rescission of her transfer to a halfway house. Plaintiff argued this rescission followed newly published guidelines on the Second Chance Act and the First Step Act which conflicted with the terms of the decree. On April 22, 2025, a class member housed at FCI Waseca filed a TRO in order to enjoin a former FCI Dublin warden from entering the complex. Judge Gonzalez denied both requests on May 5, 2025, holding that further requests to enforce the consent decree must be relayed to the Special Master.
Parties held a settlement conference on July 29, 2025. The case did not settle. On June 30, the Senior Monitor released the first monthly status report, which primarily focused on class members' continued allegations of physical abuse at the hands of BOP staff. In the month of April alone, the monitor received thirteen complaints of sexual abuse and three complaints of physical abuse, along with seventeen complaints of staff retaliation. The report further detailed BOP's continued failure to provide adequate mental and physical health care, as well as a widespread failure to comply with requirements surrounding solitary confinement.
On August 22, 2025, the court denied a class member's (Fleming) motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration because the arguments were based upon the same arguments made in her initial motion, and the new allegations were neither about class members in this case nor in any way implicate plaintiffs' counsel's duty of loyalty. 2025 WL 2553774. The class member appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 25-5611). The Ninth Circuit stayed appellate proceedings.
Settlement negotiations have continued through 2025, and the parties submitted a stipulation with a proposed order on January 8, 2026.
On March 13, 2026, a different class member objected to the settlement on the grounds that the "effective date" in the settlement was incorrect.
On April 9, 2026, the court granted the parties' settlement of attorneys' fees and expenses. Specifically, the parties agreed to an award of $3 million in satisfaction of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The court found that this award was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(h). 2026 WL 962736.
On May 13, 2026, the court denied the class member's (Fleming) motion to enforce the consent decree and motion for evidentiary hearing. The court held that the BOP had not violated the consent decree and that the issues raised had already been considered and rejected by the court. This decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 26-5202).
In the Ninth Circuit, on July 15, 2026, the court lifted the stay on first appellate proceedings by Fleming and denied Fleming's petition for writ of mandamus as moot, and stayed briefing until the court decides on motions for appointment of counsel.
As of October 8, 2026, in the district court, settlement negotiations are ongoing, and two appeals are pending.
Summary Authors
Haleigh Knowles (10/8/2026)
Grayson Metzger (1/28/2024)
Hannah Juge (6/17/2024)
Logan Moore (3/23/25)
Ben Hefter (11/22/2025)
Related Cases
M.R. v. Federal Correctional Institution "FCI" Dublin, Northern District of California (2022)
S.L. v. United States of America, Northern District of California (2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67696587/parties/california-coalition-for-women-prisoners-v-united-states-of-america/
Anderson, Carson Dean (California)
Attorney, Ms. Kara
Attorney, Professor D.
Attorney, D. Dangaran,
Albini, Dianna L. (California)
Anderson, Carson Dean (California)
Bradley, Brooke D'Amore (California)
Cha-Kim, Stephen Seungkun (California)
Galvan, Ernest James (California)
Hughes, Jonathan W. (California)
Jackson-Gleich, Ginger (California)
Janssen, Kara Jane (California)
Nemeth, Miriam Rose (California)
Novak, Lillian G. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67696587/california-coalition-for-women-prisoners-v-united-states-of-america/
Last updated Oct. 29, 2026, 3:18 a.m.
Docket for: California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 16, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All persons incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute, Dublin, currently or in the future
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
Federal Bureau of Prisons
United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 4:23-cv-04155
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 24-4509
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-05202
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-05611
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2025 - 2027
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Case Summary of California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44259/ (last updated 11/22/2025).