Jaycee Dugard can't sue US parole officials for poor supervision of her kidnapper, 9th Circuit says
Jaycee Dugard can’t sue federal parole officials who failed to report parole violations by the man who later kidnapped her and held her captive for 18 years in a shed outside his California home, a federal appeals court has ruled in a published opinion.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Dugard in a 2-1 decision on Friday, report the Orange County Register and Courthouse News Service. How Appealing links to the opinion (PDF) and additional coverage.
The 9th Circuit had previously ruled in the case in a brief four-paragraph, unpublished opinion. The new published opinion, requested by Dugard’s lawyer, is still a defeat for Dugard, though it is longer and offers more compassion, according to Courthouse News Service.
Phillip Garrido pleaded guilty to Dugard’s kidnapping and sexual assault in 2011. He was previously convicted on a federal kidnapping charge in 1977, and was released on federal parole in 1988. Federal parole officers were tasked with supervising Garrido until 1999, at which point the state of California would take over the job.
Dugard had alleged Garrido had about 70 drug-related parole violations, but federal parole officials didn’t report them. If they had, she alleged, Garrido would have been returned to prison and she would not have been kidnapped. Dugard was only 11 when Garrido kidnapped her from a bus stop.
“Phillip Garrido, a parolee with a terrible history of drug-fueled sexual violence, committed unspeakable crimes against Jaycee Dugard for 18 years,” the appeals court said in the majority opinion by Judge John Owens. “While our hearts are with Ms. Dugard, the law is not.”
The appeals court said there is no liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act if state law bars liability for private individuals in similar circumstances. Under California law, private parties do not have a duty of care to control others that is owed to the general public. Dugard’s claim fails, the appeals court said, because she was not a specifically identifiable potential victim.
Dugard’s lawyer is Jonathan Steinsapir. “We are happy that the court granted our motion to publish the disposition, but we are obviously disappointed with the result,” he told Courthouse News Service. “We believe that the dissent more accurately reflects the state of the law in this area, and we intend to ask for rehearing, including a renewed request that the 9th Circuit certify these unsettled issues of California law—upon which there was substantial disagreement between the three federal judges on this appeal—to the California Supreme Court for resolution.”
The state of California acknowledged mistakes by its own parole agents and paid Dugard a $20 million settlement.
