A federal judge is currently deliberating whether a broad civil rights lawsuit, which claims systemic failures in San Diego County jails, should advance to trial. The hearing, held on Thursday, involved U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia and attorneys representing individuals incarcerated in the jails. They described a system beset by preventable deaths, chronic understaffing, and significant lapses in care. The case, Dunsmore v. County of San Diego, initially stemmed from a single complaint regarding conditions in the downtown Central Jail but has since evolved into a class-action lawsuit targeting alleged unconstitutional medical, mental health, and safety practices across county detention facilities.
Plaintiff attorney Van Swearingen expressed grave concerns, stating, “People are dying because they’re not getting their insulin. They’re dying because they’re not getting their dialysis. There are not enough staff to attend to them.” The lawsuit, certified as a class action in November 2023, challenges nearly every aspect of jail operations, including intake procedures, housing classifications, sanitation, surveillance, and suicide prevention protocols.
At the start of the hearing, Judge Battaglia remarked on the scale of the case, suggesting it could equate to approximately nine separate lawsuits. The proceedings focused on two key motions: one from the county aiming to dismiss most of the plaintiffs’ claims, and another from the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify several of the county’s expert witnesses ahead of the trial. Notably, the county did not request the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding inadequate mental health care, a critical issue as many deaths reviewed by the plaintiffs’ experts involved individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses.
Recent declarations obtained by the plaintiffs included testimonies from three men who reported witnessing the distressing death of a mentally ill inmate in the Vista jail. Defense attorney Elizabeth Pappy acknowledged that conditions within the jails are not perfect but argued that they comply with constitutional standards. “The defense position is, there’s enough staff,” she stated, adding, “It would be lovely to have more staff, but whether there’s more staff or not, the question before you is whether the staff that is there is providing adequate medical and dental care.”
A central theme of the hearing revolved around whether the plaintiffs could prove the existence of widespread, systemic problems or if the highlighted deaths were merely unfortunate isolated incidents. Pappy conceded that mistakes do occur but emphasized the challenges of managing a “volatile, sometimes extremely dangerous population.” In contrast, the plaintiffs contended that the deficiencies are institutional and have long been acknowledged by the Sheriff’s Office.
Experts who conducted inspections and reviewed records identified troubling patterns, including delays in emergency medical care, improper medication management, and a mental health system that fails to adequately address the needs of individuals in crisis. “What’s fundamental in this case is that those mistakes are systematic — and they’re not addressed,” Swearingen asserted.
The plaintiffs are also contesting the testimony of six of the county’s expert witnesses, alleging their methodologies are flawed. Judge Battaglia posed limited questions about two of these experts before shifting focus to Dr. Joseph Penn, the county’s mental health care expert. Plaintiffs argued that Penn reused portions of a report from a separate lawsuit involving Arizona prisons, which included references to non-existent facilities and policies. They pointed out that in the Arizona case, a federal judge described Penn’s work as “deeply flawed.”
Pappy defended Penn’s approach, arguing that reusing material is a common practice in legal and expert work. She maintained that any concerns regarding credibility could be addressed during cross-examination at trial. Battaglia acknowledged the issues raised but indicated he required additional context before determining if Penn’s previous shortcomings would affect his testimony’s reliability.
The judge stated he would render a ruling “as soon as possible” and inquired about the anticipated duration of a potential trial. Plaintiffs’ attorneys suggested it could take two months, while the defense estimated three months. “This is a case of magnitude to both sides,” Battaglia remarked. “There’s a lot of moving parts.”
While not directly discussed in the hearing, the plaintiffs recently gathered declarations from three men housed in the same unit as Corey Dean, the sixth individual to die in a San Diego jail this year. According to the men, Dean spent his final days banging on his cell door and crying for help, yet he reportedly did not receive medical care despite exhibiting signs of severe distress.
Lead counsel Gay Grunfeld indicated that these declarations would support the plaintiffs’ demands for improved mental health care and a reduction in the overuse of isolation for individuals with psychiatric needs. “We intend to use the declarations in support of our goals of reducing defendants’ reliance on administrative separation for mentally ill individuals and of requiring that safety checks result in actual mental health care — not just checking a box,” Grunfeld stated.
One inmate, Jesse Gonzales, who reached out to Grunfeld after Dean’s death, recounted Dean’s condition prior to his passing. “He was banging on the walls,” Gonzales said, recalling Dean’s distress and lack of medical attention. He described the environment in the jail’s administrative segregation unit, where nearly all inmates, including himself, struggle with mental health issues. Inmates typically receive limited time outside their cells and have minimal access to mental health care, often reduced to mere screenings rather than comprehensive treatment.
This ongoing legal battle highlights significant concerns regarding the treatment of individuals in custody and the systemic issues within San Diego County jails, raising questions about the adequacy of care and oversight in such facilities. As the case progresses, its implications could extend beyond the immediate parties involved, potentially influencing broader discussions about prison reform and the treatment of mentally ill individuals in detention settings.
