Fitzgerald v. Pollard

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS

Parties

• Plaintiff: Rhonda R. Fitzgerald, an individual and long-time Kaiser Permanente employee, filing individually and on behalf of all similarly situated prison visitors.
• Defendants: Marcus Pollard (Warden, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility), Lieutenant C. Moore, Sergeant H. Cruz, Officer Jackson, Officer Little, and Does 1–10 (all correctional staff sued in their individual capacities).

Download the Complaint HERE
Download the Class Action Settlement HERE

Factual Background of Fitzgerald v. Pollard

On September 28, 2019, Fitzgerald traveled from Victorville to visit an inmate friend at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) in San Diego. Upon arrival, she was told by Officer Little that she must submit to an unclothed body search in order to be allowed visitation.

• Fitzgerald was not given the option of less intrusive searches such as a metal detector, handheld wand, ion scanner, canine search, or a clothed-body search.
• She was escorted to a small room, ordered to disrobe completely, bend over, spread her buttocks, cough, and lift her breasts while officers visually inspected her.
• No contraband was found. Officer Jackson reportedly apologized for the procedure.
• Supervisory officers later ratified the search, and Fitzgerald learned that such strip searches were routinely conducted under Warden Pollard’s authority without individualized suspicion.

California law (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3173.2) permits unclothed searches of visitors only where there is reasonable suspicion and no less intrusive means available. Fitzgerald alleged the prison’s policy violated this standard and her constitutional rights.

Claims

The complaint asserted five causes of action:

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment Violation (Unreasonable Search, no reasonable suspicion) – against all Defendants.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment Violation (Policy/Practice) – against Warden Pollard and Doe 1 (former warden).
3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Train and Supervise – against Warden Pollard and Doe 1.
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – against all Defendants.
5. Negligence – under Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.6 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3173, 3173.2.

Plaintiff sought damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief barring future random strip searches, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Class Action Allegations

• The proposed class included all visitors to RJD from May 5, 2018 onward who were subjected to unclothed body searches without individualized reasonable suspicion.
• Plaintiff alleged the class would number in the hundreds and that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues.

Counsel

Plaintiff was represented by Skapik Law Group, including:

• Geralyn L. Skapik
• Mark J. Skapik
• Blair J. Berkley
• Eric C. Morris

Procedural History

• May 5, 2020: Complaint filed.
• Early Motions: Defendants’ motion to dismiss denied. Summary judgment motions also denied.
• Class Certification: Granted; Ninth Circuit denied interlocutory appeal.
• Settlement: A $3.5 million class settlement was reached in 2024. The net fund (~$2 million) distributed to class members provided average payouts of ~$3,600, with some individuals receiving over $100,000.
• Final Approval: On October 28, 2024, the Court entered a final approval order and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.

Significance

Fitzgerald v. Pollard underscores the constitutional limits on correctional institutions’ authority to conduct intrusive searches of visitors. The case reaffirmed that strip searches require individualized reasonable suspicion and cannot be imposed randomly or as a blanket policy. The class-wide settlement provided meaningful compensation to hundreds of visitors subjected to unlawful searches and led to policy reforms at RJD.