Home › News › County News
Suit against state ward could set precedent
Corrections officer awarded $2,500; teen's lawyers want case dropped
Download this story as a podcast!
At a glance
What happened: In 2005, 16-year-old Ventura Youth Correctional Facility ward Patricia Diane Hills spazt on corrections officer Deborah McCollum. Two years later, McCollum sued Hills in Small Claims Court for punitive damages and won a $2,500 claim. Hills did not attend the trial because she was still locked up.
What's next: Today, lawyers will be in Superior Court asking for the case to be dismissed, arguing Hills' due-process rights were violated.
What's at stake: This is the first such case in California against a ward, and the California Staff Assault Task Force plans to sue more wards for assaults on officers.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsWhile on prescribed drugs for post-traumatic stress disorder and under suicide watch at the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility, Patricia Diane Hills refused to be strip-searched and spat on a corrections officer.
That was two years ago, when Hills was 16.
This year, after Hills turned 18, the corrections officer she spat on, Deborah McCollum, went to Small Claims Court and sued her for the "intentional infliction of emotional distress." She asked for $5,000 as punitive damages.
With Hills still locked up and unable to make the court appearance, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Richard Heller awarded $2,500 to McCollum in March.
Today, lawyers representing Hills will be in Superior Court asking for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that Hills' due-process rights were violated and there was no legal basis for awarding the damages.
But this case is much more than just a legal fight pitting a corrections officer against a defiant and angry teen who spat in her face, officials say.
It might determine whether correction officers or others can sue wards — juveniles in the custody of the state — who assault them or make false allegations against them.
Dismissal of case was denied
McCollum, who didn't return calls from a reporter, was aided in her case by the California Staff Assault Task Force, which helps correctional employees sue prisoners.
"This was the first case (in California) against a ward, and we were successful in holding the ward accountable in the assault of a corrections officer," said Charles Hughes, former executive director of the nonprofit organization based in Quartz Hill.
Hughes said an attorney representing the Task Force is expected to be in court today.
On its Web site, the Assault Task Force says its members have been awarded more than $10.5 million in civil judgments against inmates since a group of correctional employees created the organization in 2003. It has 9,000 members, and corrections officers plan to sue more wards, Hughes said.
That stance shocks Philip Dunn, one of Hills' lawyers.
"That's just amazing. That's incredible," said Dunn, who said it seems unfair to take legal aim at youths who are incarcerated for rehabilitation. He said that when Hills responded to the suit by McCollum, it was too late and in the wrong court.
After the judgment against her, Hills wrote letters to Superior Court to get the case dropped. "I don't know what the process is for Small Claims Court, and I am not sure why Ms. McCollum is asking for so much money, but I would respectfully ask the court to dismiss the case." She was unsuccessful.
Recently, her plight fell on the ears of a Ventura County businessman and his wife. They hired Dunn, a Westlake Village attorney, and the law firm of Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger, also of Westlake Village.
"A very fine man and his wife are paying the legal fees," Dunn said. "They believe it is the just thing to do." The couple chose to remain anonymous, he said.
'Shocked' by the legal action
Still, trying to have any case dismissed isn't easy, even with a small army of attorneys.
On Aug. 10, Dunn went to Superior Court to argue Hills' case. Commissioner Mark Borrell denied Hills' request to hold another hearing because she wasn't able to go to court the first time. He concluded that the request was "without merit."
"The defendant made no effort to ask for a continuance in the first hearing, nor is there any evidence the defendant made any request to be transported to court for her hearing," Borrell noted in his decision. Borrell didn't return phone calls from a reporter.
Small Claims Court Judge Heller said on Thursday that he was aware that Hills was locked up and couldn't be at the Small Claims Court hearing. "I awarded (McCollum) for personal injuries," he said.
Heller refused to answer further questions about his decision. "I don't discuss Small Claims cases. It is highly improper," he said.
Dunn and the law firm filed a second appeal on Sept. 7. It landed in front of Superior Court Judge Frederick Bysshe, who ordered the hearing today to determine whether a new trial should be held.
Bysshe also ordered the Ventura County Sheriff's Department to bring Hills to the hearing.
Court records show that Hills was convicted of robbery and put in the youth corrections facility near Camarillo on Dec. 22, 2004. She is scheduled to be released in 2009.
In May and July, before she got legal help, Hills wrote to the Superior Court, stating that she was locked up at the state juvenile detention facility near Camarillo. She stated that she was "shocked" about the legal action taken by McCollum.
"I was 16 years old and my state of mind was not stable," wrote Hills.
As a result of the spitting incident, Hills wrote, she got another year tacked onto her sentence and was ordered to pay $100 in restitution.
Hills stated that she makes $61 a month working inside the facility as an animal groomer and can't afford to pay $2,500.
Dunn said a Small Claims court judgment against an inmate can result in the seizure of half of the money in the person's account, which is used to make commissary purchases.
"She gets paid $60. They'll take $30 of it," he said.
"They waited until she turned 18 years old to file in Small Claims," he noted.
'My job is not to be spit on'
Hughes, however, said wards like Hills need to be held accountable for their actions. "Hopefully, we will send a message to stop assaulting our youth corrections officers," he said.
He said the Small Claims Court procedures are clearly outlined as far as defendants' rights. "They do have their day in court," he said, even if an inmate is locked up. "They can do it in correspondence with the judge."
"Ask yourself a question. If I was to spit on your face, what would you do?"
He said correctional officers understand the job is dangerous and have to show a lot of restraint. "My job is not to be spit on. My job is not to be stabbed," Hughes said.
He said spit can carry diseases such as hepatitis C or HIV. "That's nasty. That's vile. Hopefully, that ward will think twice before she does it to another individual."
In her letter to the court in May, Hills stated she holds no ill feelings toward McCollum.
"I later realized that this action against Ms. McCollum was offensive and I apologized to her and we have had no further altercations since that time. In fact, I believe Ms. McCollum to be one of the nicer officers here at the facility."
The Star on Tuesday filed a request with youth authority officials in Camarillo for permission to interview Hills. Officials said the interview could not take place until a week has passed, to allow time for security procedures.
Posted by joentascha on October 1, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am trying to grasp here exactly what Ms. McCollum is trying to get out of this. Just money? I myself have worked in a state hospital as well as other facilities that house clients and or prisoners if you will. When I signed on for these particular jobs I knew the possibilities of what could happen.I was even warned in paperwork before being hired. I was trained to take precautions and so forth.Before being able to work in any of these positions I had to sign papers stating that I was given proper warning and descriptions of my job related duties. I would be curious to know If Ms. McCollum was warned in the same way. Perhaps she should find another line of work, or maybe just another place to work. These people are in constant states of "fight or flight". I am not saying it gives them an excuse, but it sure is a daily reality when being held in these types of facilities.
Posted by steven.m.sawyer on October 1, 2007 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I commend correctional officers for the job they do, but something here just doesn't sound right...
First, if this was a 16 year old kid not in custody, the parents would be responsible right? Wouldn't she have had to sue the parents in small claims court? Since the kid is a ward and the state is her legal guardian, wouldn't the correctional officer have to sue the state?
Second, how can the correctional officer circumvent the above by waiting until the kid turns 18? Doesn't her age at the time of the incident dictate how the case is handled? If she was a juvenile at the time of the incident then the case should be handled as if she were still a juvenile... regardless of how old she is now.
Third, isn't there a one year statute of limitations on small claims cases?
I'm not saying the kid shouldnt be held accountable for their actions, but wasnt the kid ordered to pay $100 in restitution and had a year added to her sentence?
And what of the officer... didn't she file a worker's compensation claim, and have her medical/therapy bills paid for by her state insurance?
It seems to me that the state has programs in place to compensate these officers for incidents like these...
Hopefully the valueable lesson learned here, other than not to get locked up and not to spit on people, is... don't miss a court date. If she had shown up she could have made the above arguments.
Posted by joentascha on October 1, 2007 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DJKnows-get off your high horse.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on October 1, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only does McCollum have the RIGHT to sue the ward, she has a responsibility to do so. We have so many liberals pandering to criminals that it is beyond comprehension. What if Patricia Diane Hills hit the lottery or inherited a lot of money... would you cry for her then? Doubtfully. ALL prisoners should be held financially accountable for attacking correctional officers. And, joentascha, why should a criminal have more rights that a correctional officer or force that officer to leave their line of work because they don't like being attacked? It it time for prisoners to be held accountable in ALL ways; including lawsuits. Convict Hills even has a high powered law firm babying her because some rich people are liberals and feel sorry for her. My bet is they wouldn't feel that way if they got spit in the face; they'd really feel bad if THEY then came down with hepetitus or HIV. Give me a break! When all is said and done, I hope officer McCollum's case is sustained.
Posted by joentascha on October 1, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not saying that a criminal should have more rights than a correctional officer. I am wondering what and how the strip search went down. Have you ever worked in a facility like this??? If they had most likely used a proper procedure the officer would not have been spit on in the first place. This line of work is dangerous and puts one at risk. One can either hack it or they can't. I left my line of work because the clients were getting more and more dangerous. I could get really "sue happy". Right now I can name atleast five different injuries tht I could sue for. Got the number of a good lawyer NothingButTheTruth???
Posted by holdenon_2000 on October 1, 2007 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This sounds like a great way for Police Officers to earn an extra buck. If I was a cop I would love to get the spiters and vomiters, One spit or vomit a month and you can make an extra 60k a year. Where can I sign up. Emotional stress. I would rather be spit on than have my boss yell at me, and it may be less stressful, maybe we should all sue our bosses next time they give us attitude. I understand suing if you were physicaly hurt and required medical treatment, but this is a Joke, and has nothing to do with justice, this has to do with greed, and taking advantage of a situation. I will be calling the Assault Task Force, and letting them know that they are idiots to allow this case. Im sure McCollum did not pay anything out of pocket for her lawsuit. Next they will be suing drunks for throwing up on them. They will be suing runners who sweat on them, or dog owners who's dogs jump on them. Whats next suing for splinter you got while hitting an inmate with your baton?
Posted by ironwoman on October 1, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It sounds like it's all about the principle. People do have the right to sue, especially if they were wronged. It's part of our Free Country.
Nothing but the truth....you got it right, a bunch of liberals thinking, "oh this poor little child"...in the REAL WORLD, you just don't spit on people. If you really want to prepare these youths for reintegration into free society, they need to learn that certain behaviors are unacceptable. Simple as that.
Posted by joentascha on October 1, 2007 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right Wonderwoman...you do not spit on people. Like I said above how did the officers go about doing the strip search. Why did the officer wait two years to sue? Sounds like some scumball lawyer trying to make a few dollars. So what you are saying is sue for everything. Hey, he looked at me the wrong way...what's the number for that lawyer again?
Posted by chrisesq on October 3, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Why did the officer wait two years to sue? Sounds like some scumball lawyer trying to make a few dollars." Actually, (1) the case was advised by CALSATF, which (AFAIK) doesn't make any money from the litigation but exists to provide CCPOA with another tool to use against inmates; and (2) you don't get a lawyer in small claims court.
"[I]f this was a 16 year old kid not in custody, the parents would be responsible right?" No, in California children are responsible for their own tortious conduct (though parents may be held vicariously liable, since most minors are judgment-proof).
"[I]sn't there a one year statute of limitations on small claims cases?" No. For personal injury claims it's two years; Cal. Civ. Proc. § 335.1. Other causes of action may be filed within 3 - 6 years, depending on the claim(s).
"[W]asnt the kid ordered to pay $100 in restitution and had a year added to her sentence?" Sounds like criminal penalties, which don't affect civil remedies (see, e.g., O.J. Simpson).
"And what of the officer... didn't she file a worker's compensation claim, and have her medical/therapy bills paid for by her state insurance?" Immaterial, though if insurance paid out and part of the recovery was for medical costs, there's probably a subrogation clause that will let them recover some/all of the paid amount. However, in an intentional tort claim, there's also punitive damages that can be awarded, along with 'pain and suffering' damages that insurance companies don't cover but that a court can award to attempt to 'make whole' the plaintiff.
"Hopefully the valueable lesson learned here, other than not to get locked up and not to spit on people, is... don't miss a court date. If she had shown up she could have made the above arguments."
(1) I don't think she had a choice with regards to missing the court date. Absent a judge's order to transport for appearance, inmates (or wards) aren't getting to the courthouse -- there's that whole custody thing, with the razor wire and people in towers with guns. (Well, maybe not towers at the CYA girl's facility, but you get the idea.) This isn't the first time an inmate hasn't been able to defend themselves against civil actions. That part I definitely disagree with... Lack of appearance due to incarceration should not give rise to a default judgment. This appeal will be interesting, and I'm glad the inmate (er, ward) has competent legal representation for that part.
(2) See above regarding the making of those arguments. (Though I think you can probably argue diminished capacity -- though not necessarily successfully, see, e.g., McGuire v. Almy, 8 N.E.d 760 (Mass. 1937) (as a general principal case).
Posted by DoctorD on October 8, 2007 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Setting the record straight. What precedent?
"This was the first case (in California) against a ward, and we were successful in holding the ward accountable in the assault of a corrections officer,"
This was not the first (Small Claims) case against a ward of the state. I personally filed a small claims case against a ward in the year 2000. Approximately three years before the Assault task force was even formed.
Now to fend off the sym pathetic naysayers of holding people accountable. Here is the WHY. I was physically assaulted by a ward in 1999. While escorting “him” to be medically cleared after “he” had just assaulted “me” he stated, “ I’m going to sue you.” How preposterous! I decided I would sue him for physically assaulting me, money had nothing to do with it. It was about principle and an effort to change his desire to harm people. He was sentenced to 16 months in prison back in 1994 and still in prison in 1999 for his continuous assaults. By March 1998 he had accumulated an additional (19) counts of battery and (11) counts of Threat Of Force And Violence, including threats to kill. Approx 2,040 additional days in prison were imposed for his violence, to which “none” had any effect. It was not until I was “awarded” judgment and “received” over 2,000 dollars that his behavior changed. I applaud the victims of these senseless attacks for taking the steps needed to hold them accountable in court.
As for the greedy attorneys, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 116.530 prohibits attorneys from representing a client “in” small claims court. Attorneys have little interest in claims limited to the 5,000-dollar limit set by Small Claims court at that time. When you need an attorney, you buy the greediest one you can afford because it puts more of what you are after in “Your” pocket.
Don’t be fooled by the poor wards of the state and their liberal constituents telling you they will not be taken to “Have their day in court.” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 116.540 (2) (f). States in part. “A party incarcerated in a county jail, Department of Corrections facility, or Youth Authority facility is not required to personally appear, and may submit declarations to serve as evidence supporting his or her claim.
As to the person who would rather be spit on than yelled at by their boss, it is obvious that you have never watched someone die from the effects of Hepatitis C, I have. RIP K.W.
If only one person is held accountable and changes then our efforts are worth it. In my case it was quite along time before he assaulted anyone else for fear of taking what could be taken away, his “MONEY.” For the wealthy businessperson’s I think you have more money than brains. Or perhaps have never been spit on by someone who did not like the way you handed him or her their food or whatever you serve/sell. If you want to be sympathetic, perhaps it should be to the one’s who risk their life daily so that you can keep your comfortable life and business going.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 10 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.