Case: Thalacher v. County of Los Angeles

2:25-cv-10318 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Oct. 27, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This class action was filed on October 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by 38 named female plaintiffs who were or are incarcerated at the Century Regional Detention Facility (CRDF). The plaintiffs sued the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, current and former sheriffs, and individual officers, alleging that the Sheriff's Department maintained a policy allowing male correctional officers to subject completely nude female…

This class action was filed on October 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by 38 named female plaintiffs who were or are incarcerated at the Century Regional Detention Facility (CRDF). The plaintiffs sued the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, current and former sheriffs, and individual officers, alleging that the Sheriff's Department maintained a policy allowing male correctional officers to subject completely nude female inmates in administrative segregation to frequent, prolonged, and intentional observations while showering. The complaint alleged that these observations occurred without consent and for voyeuristic sexual gratification unrelated to any legitimate penological purpose, in violation of Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requirements. Plaintiffs also alleged that male officers engaged in additional misconduct including non-consensual sexual abuse during transport to showers and intentionally setting water temperatures at scalding levels to cause erratic movement for sexual gratification. The lawsuit asserted federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (bodily privacy and equal protection) and Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), seeking damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson on November 17, 2025.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2026. The new complaint added 15 new plaintiffs, expanded the scope of plaintiffs to also include those in the general population and the high power module, not just women in administrative segregation, and added four new causes of action under California state law. On March 19, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The next day, two individual defendants filed a notice of joinder to join the previous dismissal motion and filed their own motion to dismiss based on the specific allegations the plaintiffs made against them. A few days later, on March 23, 2026, both parties filed a joint stipulation to remove one of the plaintiffs from the case.

Judge Wilson issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by May 6, 2026, directing defendants to reply to that complaint by May 27, 2026, and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for joinder as moot.

As of April 2026 the case is still ongoing.

 

Summary Authors

Johnathan Johnson (4/26/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71776905/parties/dawn-thalacher-v-county-of-los-angeles/


Judge(s)

Wilson, Stephen Victor (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Boyce, Leslie A (California)

Dunn, Brian T. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

2:25-cv-10318

Complaint Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief

Thalacher et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.

Oct. 27, 2025

Oct. 27, 2025

Complaint
9

2:25-cv-10318

First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief

Jan. 8, 2026

Jan. 8, 2026

Complaint
44

2:25-cv-10318

Order Granting Stipulation to Allow Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint and Extend Time for Stipulating Defendants to Respond

April 22, 2026

April 22, 2026

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71776905/dawn-thalacher-v-county-of-los-angeles/

Last updated July 28, 2026, 4:03 p.m.

Docket for: Dawn Thalacher v. County of Los Angeles
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Oct. 27, 2025

COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-40790414 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff DAWN THALACHER. (Attorney Brian T. Dunn added to party DAWN THALACHER(pty:pla))(Dunn, Brian) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

Clearinghouse
2 Oct. 27, 2025

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff DAWN THALACHER. (Dunn, Brian) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

RECAP
3 Oct. 31, 2025

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (et) (Entered: 10/31/2025)

RECAP
4 Oct. 31, 2025

NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 10/31/2025)

RECAP
5 Oct. 31, 2025

Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) (Entered: 10/31/2025)

RECAP
6 Oct. 31, 2025

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (et) (Entered: 10/31/2025)

RECAP
7 Oct. 31, 2025

NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Dawn Thalacher, identifying COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ROBERT LUNA, LEE BACA, ALEX VILLANUEVA, JIM MCDONNELL, JORGE PADILLA, TRAVIS NELSON. (Dunn, Brian) (Entered: 10/31/2025)

RECAP
8 Nov. 17, 2025

NEW CASE ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (dta) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

RECAP
9 Jan. 8, 2026

Amended Complaint/Petition

Clearinghouse
10 Jan. 9, 2026

Summons Request

RECAP
11 Jan. 9, 2026

Deficiency in Summons

RECAP
12 Jan. 9, 2026

Summons Request

RECAP
13 Jan. 12, 2026

Summons Issued

RECAP
14 Jan. 27, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
15 Jan. 27, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
16 Jan. 27, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
17 Jan. 28, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
18 Jan. 29, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
19 Jan. 29, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
20 Jan. 29, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
21 Jan. 29, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
22 Jan. 29, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
23 Feb. 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
24 Feb. 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
25 Feb. 10, 2026

Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)

RECAP
26 Feb. 11, 2026

Extending Answer Due Deadline

RECAP
27 March 2, 2026

Substitute Attorney (G-01)

RECAP
28 March 2, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
29 March 12, 2026

Appearance

RECAP
30 March 17, 2026

Leave

RECAP
31 March 19, 2026

Dismiss Case

Clearinghouse
32 March 20, 2026

Joinder

Clearinghouse
33 March 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
34 March 23, 2026

Initial Order Setting R26 Scheduling Conference - form only

RECAP
35 March 23, 2026

Dismiss Party

Clearinghouse
35 March 23, 2026

Dismiss Party

Clearinghouse
36 March 24, 2026

Deficiency in Filed Documents (G-112A) - optional html form

RECAP
38 March 25, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Parties

RECAP
March 25, 2026

Text Only Scheduling Notice

39 April 7, 2026

Objection/Opposition (Motion related)

RECAP
40 April 13, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

RECAP
41 April 13, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

RECAP
42 April 15, 2026

Notice (Other)

Clearinghouse
43 April 21, 2026

Objection

Clearinghouse
44 April 22, 2026

Dismiss Case AND Joinder

Clearinghouse
45 April 23, 2026

Substitute Attorney (G-01)

RECAP
46 April 24, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
47 April 27, 2026

Substitute Attorney

RECAP
48 May 6, 2026

Amended Complaint/Petition

RECAP
49 May 11, 2026

Summons Request

RECAP
50 May 11, 2026

Summons Issued

RECAP
51 May 25, 2026

Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)

RECAP
52 May 26, 2026

Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)

RECAP
53 May 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
54 May 27, 2026

Dismiss (cause or other)

RECAP
55 May 27, 2026

Extending Answer Due Deadline

RECAP
56 May 28, 2026

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

RECAP
57 June 7, 2026

Non-Opposition to Motion

RECAP
58 June 15, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

RECAP
59 June 16, 2026

Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)

RECAP
60 June 16, 2026

Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties

RECAP
61 June 26, 2026

Dismiss Case

RECAP
62 June 26, 2026

Notice (Other)

RECAP
63 June 30, 2026

Dismiss AND Motion Hearing

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Prison Conditions

Privacy

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 27, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

53 female plaintiffs who were or are incarcerated at the Century Regional Detention Facility's (CRDF) general population, administrative segregation or high power modules and allege that they were or are subjected to constitutional deprivations and official misconduct of a sexual nature at the hands of male officers of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department employed the facility.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

County

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Law-enforcement

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

State Anti-Discrimination Law

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Equal Protection

Other Dockets:

Central District of California 2:25-cv-10318

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Aggressive behavior

Assault/abuse by staff

Bathing and hygiene

Bathrooms

Conditions of confinement

Pattern or Practice

Search policies

Discrimination Area:

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Administrative segregation

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Prison Rape Elimination Act

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Strip search policy (facilities)

Recommended Citation