... he sequestered Jaycee in ragged sheds and tent-like structure in his backyard - removed from any semblance of normalcy and functioning society - where he raped Jaycee hundreds of times and over the course of many years. (Complaint - Dugard v. US, filed in US District Court Northern California District)Jaycee Dugard was 11-years old when she was abducted in 1991 and held as a sex-slave for 18 years by parolee Philip Garrido and his wife. In the number of years it took to become an adult, she was kept in an elaborate tent and shed complex in Garrido’s backyard, away from prying eyes in the City of Antioch California. There she was raped and held against her will and where she later bore two children fathered by Garrido. The first of which she gave birth to at the tender age of 14.
On Thursday, she filed an action in the US District Court in Northern California against the federal government and its agencies - the United States Parole Commission (USPC), United States Probation Office (USPO), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for an unspecified amount of damages.
The action invoked the “Federal Tort Act” and specified 28 USC Section 2671 and Section 1346(b). The complaint alleges that the federal government and its agents committed “gross negligence” including “flagrant errors in Garrido’s supervision (while on parole) resulting in Jaycee’s continued captivity and torture” It further stated the following:
- Defendant ignored facts establishing that Garrido would harm again.
- Defendant failed to report Garrido’s multiple parole violations.
- Defendant ignored existence of Garrido’s backyard sheds.
- Defendant ignored requirements to see Garrido once a month.
- Defendant ignored requirements to furnish state authorities with information about Garrido.
- Negligent Supervision (of Garrido while on parole).
- Negligent failure to consider all relevant information in reaching parole decision (resulting in the early release of Garrido from a previous sex-crime sentence)
- Failure to conduct mental health examination (of Garrido).
- Negligence in treating Garrido’s mental health problems.
- Negligent failure to provide information regarding Garrido to the state authorities.
The complaint pointed to Garrido’s early release from prison as a major factor in Dugard’s abduction. Garrido had been serving a 50-year sentence for another sex-crime when she was kidnapped. He was committed to prison until 2027, but because of actions by the federal government “bordering on complicity” he was released on parole in 1988.
The complaint alleges that while Garrido was out, he habitually violated the conditions of his parole. At the time, he was a subject to the US Parole Commission's “Zero Tolerance Policy”, but nevertheless tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines and marijuana. He also tested positive for alcohol, registering a reading of 0.45%, enough to induce a person into comma or even cause death. But perhaps more telling of future events were the reports of him making threatening statements to women, which should have caused the parole officers assigned to take action including rescind his parole. At one point the counselor assigned to his case was concerned enough to make the recommendation that he be placed on electronic monitoring.
Jaycee Dugard and her minor children will be represented by the Los Angeles law firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump and Aldisert.
FILED COMPLAINT (DUGARD v. US)
WEBSITE OF KINSELLA, WEITZMAN (KWIKA)
CNN ARTICLE
LA TIMES ARTICLE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOC ARTICLE
The complaint alleges that while Garrido was out, he habitually violated the conditions of his parole. At the time, he was a subject to the US Parole Commission's “Zero Tolerance Policy”, but nevertheless tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines and marijuana. He also tested positive for alcohol, registering a reading of 0.45%, enough to induce a person into comma or even cause death. But perhaps more telling of future events were the reports of him making threatening statements to women, which should have caused the parole officers assigned to take action including rescind his parole. At one point the counselor assigned to his case was concerned enough to make the recommendation that he be placed on electronic monitoring.
Jaycee Dugard and her minor children will be represented by the Los Angeles law firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump and Aldisert.
FILED COMPLAINT (DUGARD v. US)
WEBSITE OF KINSELLA, WEITZMAN (KWIKA)
CNN ARTICLE
LA TIMES ARTICLE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOC ARTICLE
