|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Contra Costa County continues ongoing efforts to turn over a new leaf in its approach to juvenile justice, numerous former detainees are seeking recourse in two lawsuits against the county, its former chief probation officers and multiple workers in the youth detention facilities over the years who allegedly subjected them to sexual abuse while they were incarcerated as minors.
Attorneys for the 11 plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court say that their clients — all now grown men between the ages of 29 and 40 — suffered widespread sexual abuse and harassment at the hands of guards and staff tasked with their care when they were incarcerated between the ages of 12 and 17.
A second case with parallel allegations from an individual plaintiff was filed by attorneys with a different law firm on April 10.
The alleged abusers consisted of numerous correction officers from the probation department as well as doctors and counselors, most of whom are unnamed in the complaints.
Spokespeople for the county had not responded to a request for comment as of Tuesday afternoon.
The abuse was compounded by intimidation, implicit and explicit threats of retaliation, and an overall environment in which the victims believed their reports would not be taken seriously by county authorities, according to both complaints.
“The plaintiffs were abused as incarcerated minors who were separated from their families and therefore were ideal victims, giving abusers prime targets to sexually exploit,” attorneys from the Southern California ACTS law firm wrote in the collective lawsuit filed April 3.
“Plaintiffs were frightened and were told that if they complained, it would fall on ‘deaf ears’ and/or they would be punished, which created the false assumption they would not report the conduct, and if they did, nobody would believe them over the word of sworn peace officers subject to the power and coercive authority granted to police,” they continued.
The complaint makes a distinction between alleged abusers and defendants, which include the county officials and chief probation officers working at the time who attorneys said “ratified and endorsed” the abuse “which sent a message to plaintiffs that such abuse and harassment was acceptable.”
Although the two lawsuits appear to be the first on public record alleging sexual abuse in the county’s juvenile justice system, there have been other causes for concern and legal action over the years.
The county settled two class action lawsuits, one in 2009 agreeing to revise the strip search policy for youth in custody, and the other in 2015 in which the county agreed to end solitary detention at juvenile hall for the most part, and to provide additional resources for incarcerated youth with mental health and behavioral challenges.
In 2012, a Pleasant Hill man who worked as a counselor in Contra Costa Juvenile Hall was sentenced to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to recording himself sexually assaulting two children sometime between 2007 and 2010, then possessing and distributing that material. It’s unknown if those assaults or others occurred while he was on the job at the youth detention facility.
Strip searches were a factor in accounts of the alleged abuse from some of the plaintiffs in the collective lawsuit, with three describing sexual abuse as having occurred during or under the pretext of strip searches. One of those plaintiffs alleged that this was the case when he was incarcerated in 2013, years after the 2009 class action settlement by the county.
In other cases, plaintiffs allege they were abused, often violently, in a range of other settings, including in their cells, showers and during medical examinations. The abuse happened on more than one occasion according to all 12 plaintiffs, many of whom allege that they were assaulted by multiple staff members, including doctors and counselors as well as officers in the facilities.
Attorneys in both lawsuits argue that others working in the facilities at the time and county authorities had known or should have known about the abuse, pointing to “red flags” in the behavior of the alleged abusers as well as the overall pervasiveness of the allegations.
They allege that authorities failed to provide adequate medical care following the incidents, in addition to allowing the abuse to happen in the first place.
“The sexual assault and mental abuse inflicted upon plaintiffs constituted a serious and obvious medical/psychological condition requiring immediate medical and/or psychological care,” attorneys for the collective complaint wrote. “Sexual assault creates urgent medical needs, including the risk of physical trauma, unintended pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections, as well as the acute psychological impact of trauma requiring emergent mental health intervention.”
Years later, all 12 plaintiffs allege that they continue to suffer from psychological injuries and mental health struggles including anxiety, depression, struggles understanding their sexual orientation and maintaining relationships, flashbacks, and other ongoing effects often triggered by childhood sexual abuse.
“The plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic and noneconomic), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future,” attorneys from the Los Angeles firm Gould Grieco and Hensley wrote in the individual claim filed April 10, in which the plaintiff alleges abuse from 1998 when he was 12 years old.
In all cases, the alleged victims said that they faced intimidation and threats of retaliation for reporting the abuse by both their abusers and supervisory authorities.
“Defendants acted intentionally in creating an environment that harbored molesters, placed their vulnerable minors at inherent and devastating risk of harm in order to maintain a façade of normalcy and to maintain the funding of the county,” attorneys wrote in the collective lawsuit.
“The safety of the minors entrusted to and confined at county facilities was devastatingly compromised due to defendants desire to maintain the status quo and circumvent any public scrutiny for their misconduct,” they continued.
A majority of defendants in the claims are either anonymous or listed only by their last names, with the exception of three former probation office directors who were employed during the time of the allegations. Attorneys in both cases said they would be seeking leave to amend when those identities are discovered.
Neither of the two alleged abusers identified by their full names so far appear to still be employed by the county, or to have faced criminal charges. A longtime officer at the county juvenile hall with the same name as one of the alleged abusers died in 2020, according to an obituary published by The Press.
In addition to staff and government turnover and changes in practices mandated by settlement agreements over the years, the county’s juvenile justice system updated its policies following the finalization of standards for the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2013.
According to the county’s current juvenile detention policy manual, there is a “zero tolerance for sexual abuse and sexual harassment in the facilities,” and “each facility will take appropriate affirmative measures to protect all youth from sexual abuse and harassment, and promptly and thoroughly investigate all allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.”
In accordance with PREA standards, the county’s current policy details numerous training areas necessary for staff or contractors at juvenile hall aimed at curtailing sexual abuse and emphasizing mandatory reporting requirements, as well as sexual health education and mental health support for incarcerated youth upon intake, and grievance and investigation procedures for sexual assault and harassment allegations.
The implementation of PREA standards along with the 2015 settlement that included an agreement to increase staffing levels at youth detention facilities dovetailed with an overall downward trend in youth incarceration in Contra Costa County in the years since the allegations in the recent lawsuits.
The average daily population of youth detainees in the county dropped from 193 in 2010 to 118 in 2015, continuing to dwindle over the years to 33 as of 2025, according to data from the California Board of State and Community Corrections. But the population has ticked back up in the past year.
According to the most recent data from the county, the current population at John A. Davis Juvenile Hall in Martinez is 82 following an increase in arrests and detention over the past six months.
Nonetheless, the current population remains lower than it was decades ago, and stands at just a fraction of the 290-bed capacity for the county’s remaining juvenile hall facility.
In the face of that downward population trend and ongoing scrutiny over the youth criminal justice system at large, as well as rising costs, the board of supervisors opted in 2021 to close the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility in 2022.
The county has since moved forward with plans to demolish the former juvenile hall facility that was replaced with the current John A. Davis hall in 2005, with bids for that project closed late last year.
While county officials ultimately came to an agreement on those moves, the decision started with debate over which facility to shut down. District Attorney Diana Becton and a county grand jury report recommended the closure of John A. Davis Hall and the expansion of services at Orin Allen.
The 2020 grand jury report that precipitated those conversations and decisions found that a great deal had changed both locally and more broadly in the realm of juvenile justice, specifically decreased youth arrests and improved conditions, along with increased costs.
“At the beginning of the last decade in California and Contra Costa County, there were more youth in detention, fewer staff to manage them, and fewer programs that were designed to help the youth change their behaviors and actions,” the Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury wrote in 2020. “By 2018 there were fewer youth in detention in Contra Costa County, adequate staffing to manage them, and a large range of programming designed to help reduce recidivism and improve social functioning.”
Still, attorneys in the recent lawsuits detailing allegations from 1998 to 2013 contend that the incidents are emblematic of an “ongoing and pervasive” issue at the county level.
“Maltreatment of minors in the juvenile justice system, particularly sexual assault and abuse, has been a chronic problem defendants have failed to address in any reasonable manner consistent with its duties to minors in the juvenile justice system,” attorneys in the collective lawsuit wrote.
It remains unclear whether or not the quantity of sexual abuse complaints or investigations at the county’s youth detention facilities has changed in the years since new requirements and ongoing youth criminal justice reform efforts have been implemented.
Although the county’s youth detention policy states that a data review and report on sexual harassment and assault complaints will be made available to the public on the facility’s website at least annually, no such report appeared to be available on any county website as of Tuesday afternoon.
Meanwhile, it could be some time before further details emerge in the recent allegations, and before they are formally adjudicated in any way. The individual lawsuit is set for an initial court hearing in August, with a hearing on the collective case scheduled for September.
