This federal lawsuit pending before the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California, challenges the County of San Diego, San Diego County Sheriff’s Office (formerly “Department”), and San Diego County Probation Department for their collective failure to provide adequate, accessible and safe living conditions, and medical, mental health or dental care for people incarcerated in county jails. It also seeks to address the rights of individuals to pursue claims without attorney representation, to have access to counsel and to address over-incarceration in San Diego County Jails of people of color.
Named plaintiff Darryl Dunsmore filed this lawsuit without legal representation in 2020. In February 2022, now represented by Class Counsel, Mr. Dunsmore and additional named plaintiffs amended the complaint to include class action allegations on behalf of all individuals who are or will be incarcerated in the County’s jails, with an amended complaint filed in November 2022, which is available here. The lawsuit includes eight claims for class relief, including the Third Claim for Relief, which seeks relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code §11135.
On November 3, 2023, the Court approved parties’ joint motion for class certification, certifying one class and three subclasses. The Court’s order is here. The Class Notice is here.
On December 11, 2024, the San Diego Board of Supervisors approved a comprehensive settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and related state law. On March 3, 2025 Judge Battaglia granted preliminary approval to the settlement. That order is here.
The proposed settlement agreement follows an initial ADA settlement agreement reached in 2023, after the Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion to seek accessible housing for people with mobility disabilities at the downtown San Diego Central Jail, as well as access to sign language interpreting services. As a result of that initial settlement, the Sheriff’s Office has undertaken renovations to Central Jail to make it more accessible to people who use wheelchairs or have other mobility disabilities. The Sheriff’s Office has also begun offering sign language interpretation to deaf people through video remote interpreting, and other methods.
After extensive fact discovery and the exchange of expert reports, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to enter into a more comprehensive settlement agreement to resolve the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims for disability discrimination and denial of access to programs, services and activities. Plaintiffs’ expert reports on ADA issues are here and here. The proposed settlement of the disability claim requires additional significant changes to the Jail’s policies, procedures, and practices for accommodating individuals with disabilities including those with mental health needs and intellectual disabilities. The proposed settlement also requires physical construction at several Jail facilities to provide accessible housing to people with disabilities. The proposed settlement has been submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. Information about the Settlement Notice and Fairness Hearing will be posted here as soon as available.
The March 3, 2025 order granting preliminary approval and approving Plaintiffs’ proposal for class notice is important because this case included an unusual situation where the parties had competing proposals for the distribution of the class notice, as opposed to agreeing on the method of distribution. The order therefore includes analysis about the effectiveness of competing proposals for distributing a notice of settlement to a class, particularly an incarcerated class. Judge Battaglia’s order approving Plaintiffs’ proposed method for distribution sets forth clear principles about how to ensure effective class notice for an incarcerated population, including posting the notice in large font and on white paper (as opposed to transparencies) and handing the notice directly to incarcerated people entering the jail. The approved class notice is here.
Seven other claims in the case remain ongoing and in active litigation. Highly qualified experts have opined on each of the claims; those reports can be found under the “Expert Declarations” tab on this page. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on 6 of the 7 remaining claims in the case. A hearing on Defendants’ motion will be held May 8. Pre-trial procedures will begin 30 days after the Court rules on the motion.