California Prisoners Sue Gynecologist for Sexual Abuse
On February 2, 2025, a class-action complaint was filed by women housed at the California Institute for Women (CIW). The suit alleges that Dr. Scott Lee abused dozens of prisoners for at least seven years while he acted as the institutional gynecologist at the facility. It is also alleged that multiple staff were aware of the many complaints of abuse and refused to protect the women being victimized. From 2016 to 2023, Lee was the sole gynecologist on staff. Women who complained were either denied care or retaliated against. Those who received Lee’s “medical care” endured worse.
The 93-page complaint identified 15 causes of action against multiple administrators of both the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Correctional Health Care Services, and specifically Dr. Lee. The causes of action include: deliberate indifference to serious medical needs resulting in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; violations of the Fourth Amendment for, inter alia, false imprisonment and invasion of privacy; violations of California law including the Bane Act, Ralph Act, gender violence, civil battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
The class-action suit was brought by several Jane Does and the California Coalition for Women’s Prisoners (CCWP). The CCWP is a grassroots non-profit advocacy group that is composed of members who are currently or formerly incarcerated at CIW. It has chapters in Oakland and Los Angeles. Primarily supported by donors, CCWP advocates on behalf of prisoners incarcerated while working to “help change brutal conditions of confinement, obtain release from prison, and challenge inequities of the criminal legal system,” according to the suit. CCWP has standing as it has been injured by the defendants’ alleged actions and omissions “because it must expend substantial resources advocating for its members and constituents who are harmed and threatened by Defendants’ ongoing failure to protect people incarcerated at CIW.”
Some of these allegations are horrendous and grotesque. The misconduct and omissions alleged include: abusive biopsies, breast/chest exams, pap smears, pelvic exams and sexualized digital penetration; coerced, excessive or unnecessary examinations and procedures, including anal examinations without observation of identified protections; withholding medical treatment; inappropriate and sexualized comments; failure to use trauma-informed gynecological care; and retaliation with negative charting and false accusations of patient dishonesty to justify more invasive exams.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged that safe gynecological care is a “basic human need,” that was “ignored and neglected” by the defendants; instead, the women were subjected to “horrific, sadistic, and retaliatory abuse under the guise of gynecology care.” Further, the defendants had reason to know, or should have known, that the “majority of people in women’s prisons have suffered sexual abuse prior to their incarceration,” according to the complaint.
Jane Doe 4 said that, in 2023, Lee “pressed on her pelvic and vaginal areas with force” and then dismissed her concerns. Lee instead digitally penetrated her in a “sexualized and aggressive manner.” The pregnant woman began to bleed for the first time in her pregnancy immediately after. “I remember holding my stomach, and I was just praying, ‘God, please let this be over, please let this be over, please let this be over.’ I felt like he was raping my baby,” said Jane Doe 4. She was forced to live “in fear for the wellbeing of her unborn child.”
Jane Doe 6 described her exams as “unnecessarily painful,” and once when Lee put his finger in her anus without consent or explanation, Lee “became very upset, hostile, and was inappropriately crass towards Jane Doe 6,” according to the suit. Lee is also alleged to have “left his fingers inserted longer than necessary.”
“It is really hard for people to come forward. People heard about what [Lee had] done and were terrified,” said Jenny Huang, a plaintiff’s attorney. She added, “[prisoners] chose to deprive themselves of gynecological care just to keep themselves safe from sexual abuse.” Colby Lenz, an advocate with the CCWP, described the courage of the alleged victims in coming forward: “One of the most powerful things about this case is that one woman went cell-to-cell asking people about their experiences, and what she found was a pattern of abuse. This was advocacy on the inside and a lot of survivors coming together to take a stand and make sure others wouldn’t be victimized by [Lee].”
Women’s prisons in California at both the state and federal levels have recently been the subjects of lawsuits and criminal allegations. Gregory Rodriguez, a former guard at another California women’s prison, targeted women for years before being convicted of 64 counts of sexual abuse against incarcerated women. That prison’s administrators had been aware of his conduct as well; but he wasn’t fired, and the complainants were punished instead. FCI Dublin, a federal prison in northern California, saw at least ten guards, and even the institutional warden, charged. That now-shuttered facility’s “rape club”—and how litigation against it resulted in a $116 million settlement for survivors—was the focus of our last issue’s cover story [See: PLN, June 2025, p. 1]. Perhaps some of California’s other women’s prisons should be closed as well. See: Calif. Coalit’n for Women Prisoners v. Lee, USDC(C.D. Cal.), Case No. 5:25-cv-00283.
Additional source: The Guardian
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Calif. Coalit’n for Women Prisoners v. Lee
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 5:25-cv-00283 |
| Level | District Court |