Case: (PC) Wind v. State of California
1:25-cv-00266 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Filed Date: March 3, 2025
Closed Date: March 20, 2026
Clearinghouse coding in progress
Case Summary
This case challenges the treatment of female inmates by numerous prison guards at Central California Women's Facility (CCWF) in Chowchilla, California.
The case centers on events that occurred on August 2nd, 2024, at CCWF. Cell block 513, also known as Delta Yard, houses 159 female prisoners and was the site of that day's events. Prior to August 2nd, inmates had filed numerous complaints against correctional officers under the Prison Rape Elimination Policy ("PREA"). One correctional officer was the central instigating force behind the events of August 2nd and was a listed defendant, hereafter referred to as "Officer A." Officer A was allegedly unhappy with the quantity of complaints and told inmates to "stop weaponizing" PREA complaints. Officer A threatened to throw away the inmates' property, conduct mass cell searches, and impose a full lockdown with loss of privileges if the inmates did not cease filing PREA complaints. Officer A was allegedly the leader of the "Delta Dogs" prison gang, which allegedly used intimidation tactics and harassment to silence prisoners and block their access to administrative relief.
Officer A received permission to search all cells in the block and summoned guards from nearby prisons to assist; approximately 70 guards were present for the search. On the morning of August 2nd, officers removed all inmates in block 513 from their cells and directed them to the cafeteria to begin the search process; during this time inmates were not provided medications, water, food, or any meals. Officers allegedly told the inmates their belongings were being thrown away, despite procedural protections requiring proper notice, among other things. One inmate passed out from overheating and lack of food and medication. Inmates called for medical assistance, triggering an alarm. The alarm summoned all officers to the cafeteria, where they formed a skirmish line in a tactical formation. At Officer A's command, officers sprayed the inmates—including all plaintiffs—with pepper spray, at times discharging it at close range directly into inmates' eyes. All plaintiffs also had flash bang grenades and tear gas thrown at them or in their direction.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) rules prohibit using these devices to cause injury. Officers wore gas masks to protect themselves from the devices' effects. The inmates, including the plaintiffs, were compliant to the officers' commands and had done nothing to warrant the use of these devices. Officers beat some inmates with batons at Officer A's direction. Officers zip-tied some inmates with their arms behind their backs and allegedly dragged them outside to a grassy area; the majority were already suffering adverse health effects from the devices. Both inside the cafeteria and outside on the grass, Officer A prevented medical staff from tending to injuries. Numerous plaintiffs had previous medical conditions that precluded the use of pepper spray and tear gas in their presence; officers neither followed nor acknowledged this restriction. One plaintiff claimed to see officers "slamming female inmates with mobility assistive devices ("walkers") to the floor."
The officers continued to use the devices outside on the grassy area as well, despite the fact that the inmates were zip-tied, harmless, and helpless. Numerous plaintiffs lost consciousness from fainting and seizures; many had never experienced a seizure before that day. One inmate suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of hitting the ground after losing consciousness; another inmate suffered a concussion. Numerous plaintiffs suffered eye injuries, including permanent blindness and peripheral vertigo. Medical staff were stationed nearby but Officer A told them to stay back; some inmates were able to be seen by medical providers outside, but mainly for life saving treatment. Numerous inmates required transport to a nearby hospital for treatment. Plaintiffs suffered cuts and bruises, as well as permanent scarring, as a result of the incident. Numerous plaintiffs suffered mental and emotional distress, including PTSD, and have been unable to return to the cafeteria since. Witnesses allegedly saw officers laughing and fist-bumping one another after the incident.
On March 3rd, 2025, 13 prisoners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Represented by Robert Chalfant Law, PC, the plaintiffs sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Civil Code §§ 52.1, 52.4, and 845.6, and California common law, seeking damages, civil penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs claimed that prison officials violated their Eighth Amendment rights by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment and exhibiting deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. For statutory and common law claims, plaintiffs claimed that defendants' actions constituted gender violence, sex discrimination, failure to summon medical care, and an interference with their constitutional rights by force or threat of violence. Plaintiffs also asserted claims of battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Finally, plaintiffs asserted a supervisory liability claim for the acts of certain higher-ranking officials. The court assigned the case to District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.
On July 23rd, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with minor changes for grammatical clarity and additional, non-substantive, details within the Facts section. On December 18th, 2025, the court granted a motion to stay the proceedings so that the parties could discuss and potentially reach a settlement agreement. On March 19th, 2026, the case was voluntarily dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is not public, but media outlets have reported that the case settled for $1.9 million, with payouts ranging among plaintiffs.
As of March 20th, 2026, this case has concluded.
Summary Authors
Hannah Smith (9/21/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69699798/parties/pc-wind-v-state-of-california/
Chalfant, Robert Lynn (California)
Andrada, J. Randall (California)
Fisher, Rachel (California)
Kallberg, Jacqueline (California)
Mark, Arthur B. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69699798/pc-wind-v-state-of-california/
Last updated Sept. 21, 2026, 12:50 p.m.
Docket for: (PC) Wind v. State of California
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 3, 2025
Closing Date: March 20, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Female inmates incarcerated at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, CA
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
State of California
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of California 1:25-cv-00266
Special Case Type(s):
Non-court arbitration/mediation
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: $1.9 million settlement
Issues
General/Misc.:
Disability and Disability Rights:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Case Summary of (PC) Wind v. State of California, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48001/ (last updated 9/21/2026).