Dr. Scott Lee Lawsuit: CIW Class Action Update 2026

Last updated: October 2026

The Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit is a federal class action filed by women who say they were sexually abused during gynecological care at the California Institution for Women (CIW) in Chino. It was filed in February 2025 and, as of October 2026, is still active in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. No settlement or final ruling has been announced. This Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit update also explains how class membership could work, how reporting rights apply in custody and which records may help.

This update explains what the case alleges, what has happened in court so far, and what may come next. All claims described here are allegations that have not been proven.

What the lawsuit alleges

The case is called California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. Lee, Case No. 5:25-cv-00283. It was filed on February 2, 2025, by several women using “Jane Doe” names, along with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, an advocacy group.

The complaint alleges that Dr. Scott Lee, who was CIW’s gynecologist from about 2016 to 2023, performed exams and procedures that were unnecessary, invasive or sexual in nature. It also alleges retaliation and the denial of needed medical care. ABC7 reported that one plaintiff kept a daily journal that her lawyers say shows officials were aware of concerns.

The suit does not only name the doctor. It also names officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California Correctional Health Care Services. Plaintiffs claim these officials knew about the problem and failed to stop it.

The legal claims

According to Prison Legal News, the 93-page complaint lists 15 causes of action. They include:

• Violations of the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.
• Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
• California civil rights claims under the Bane Act and the Ralph Act.
• State-law injury claims.

The plaintiffs ask for money damages. They also ask the court to order changes at CIW, such as staff training, reviews of medical procedures and required chaperones during gynecological exams.

Key court events so far

Based on the court docket summarized by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, the case has moved through these steps:

• **February 2025:** Complaint filed. The plaintiffs ask to proceed under pseudonyms.
• **May 2025:** First amended complaint filed.
• **June 2025:** The court allows the plaintiffs to proceed using pseudonyms. The case is referred to mediation.
• **July–August 2025:** Defendants, including Dr. Lee, file motions to dismiss. A hearing is held in August.
• **January 13, 2026:** The court grants the motions in part and denies them in part. Some claims against some defendants are dismissed, but the plaintiffs are allowed to amend.
• **April 1, 2026:** Second amended complaint filed.
• **Mid-2026:** Discovery disputes and status conferences continue. The mediation deadline was extended to August 27, 2026.

As of the last docket update we reviewed, from July 2026, the case was still in active litigation.

Why the January 2026 ruling matters

Motions to dismiss test whether a complaint states valid legal claims. They do not decide who is telling the truth.

The court’s January 2026 order was mixed. Some claims were dismissed for certain plaintiffs and defendants, but the court let the plaintiffs amend, and the core case continued. The second amended complaint filed in April 2026 reflects those changes.

The proposed classes

Because this is a class action, the plaintiffs want the court to let them represent larger groups of women. The proposed groups include:

• **A “received treatment” class:** people seen by Dr. Lee for obstetric or gynecological care at CIW.
• **A “nonconsensual examination” subclass:** people who say they were not given proper informed consent.
• **A “deterred” class:** people who avoided gynecological care because they were afraid.

The court has not yet decided whether to certify these classes. If it does, many women could be covered by the case without filing separately.

If you were a patient at CIW during those years, it may help to note the approximate dates of your appointments now. Memories fade, and records can be harder to find later. You can share that information with a law firm when you are ready.

What CDCR has said

In February 2025, CDCR said it could not comment on personnel matters but that “Dr. Scott Lee no longer has direct in-person contact with patients.” At the time, ABC7 reported that he remained on the state payroll.

The defendants deny wrongdoing and have fought the claims in court. No court has found Dr. Lee or any official liable.

McClatchy reported in February 2025 that a separate lawsuit filed in December 2023 raised broader abuse claims at CIW and the Central California Women’s Facility. That case involves different allegations and is not part of the Lee class action.

The larger picture at California’s women’s prisons

This case is part of wider concern about sexual abuse in California’s women’s prisons. On September 4, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a civil rights investigation into whether CDCR protects women at CIW and the Central California Women’s Facility from sexual abuse by staff.

The DOJ asked anyone with information to call 1-888-392-9490 or email Community.CAWomensPrisons@usdoj.gov. That investigation is separate from the Lee lawsuit.

What happens next in the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit

The next major steps may include:

• More discovery, such as medical records, policies and witness testimony.
• A ruling on whether the case can proceed as a class action.
• Further mediation or settlement talks.
• A trial, if the case does not settle.

These steps can take many months. Survivors who have not come forward may still have options, but deadlines vary by claim type and can be complex when the state is involved.

California’s AB 2777, for example, revived some adult sexual assault claims from 2009 to 2019 until December 31, 2026. Claims against state agencies may also require an earlier government claim. A participating law firm can explain which rules may fit your situation.

How Class Membership Could Work in the Dr. Scott Lee Lawsuit

Many women who saw Dr. Lee at CIW want to know whether they are already part of the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit. The answer depends on whether, and how, the court certifies the proposed classes. Here is how class actions in federal court generally work under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

What a court looks at before certifying a class

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a court generally must find that:

• The group is so large that bringing everyone into one case individually is impractical.
• Class members share common questions of law or fact.
• The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the group.
• The named plaintiffs and their lawyers will fairly represent everyone.

The court also looks at what kind of relief is being sought. The Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit asks for both money damages and changes in how care is given at CIW. Those two goals can be handled in different ways.

Notice and the right to opt out

For classes seeking money damages, Rule 23 requires the court to direct notice that is practical under the circumstances, including individual notice to members who can be identified. The notice must explain the case, who is in the class, the binding effect of a judgment and the right to ask to be excluded, often called opting out.

Classes that seek only changes in policy or practice may work differently. In those classes, members often cannot opt out, because the changes would apply to everyone.

Settlement approval

If the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit were to settle on a class basis, the court would hold a hearing. A judge can only approve a class settlement after finding it fair, reasonable and adequate. Class members may file objections if they disagree.

Why you might still talk to a firm

Even if you could be a class member, a participating law firm can help you understand how a class ruling may affect you, whether an individual claim may make sense, and what deadlines may apply to state-law claims.

Reporting Rights for People in Custody

Some survivors are still at CIW or another facility. Reporting abuse while in custody can feel risky. Federal standards under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) are meant to give incarcerated people safe ways to report.

What PREA standards require

Under the PREA standard at 28 CFR 115.51, prisons and jails must:

• Provide multiple internal ways to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment.
• Provide at least one way to report to an outside public or private office that is not part of the agency.
• Allow a person reporting to that outside office to remain anonymous upon request.
• Accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously and from third parties, such as family members.

Other PREA standards require agencies to protect people who report from retaliation. If you face threats, discipline or loss of privileges after reporting, write down what happened and when.

Ways family members can help

• Make a third-party report on behalf of a loved one who is afraid to report directly.
• Keep copies of letters, call notes and any written responses.
• Help a loved one connect with an outside advocate or a law firm.

Reporting is a personal choice. You can report, talk with a firm about the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit, do both or do neither. Deadlines may still apply, so it helps to ask questions early.

Gathering Records and Memories Safely

Records can help show when you were seen and what care you received, which may matter if you take part in the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit. But gathering them while in custody, or after release, can be stressful. Go at your own pace.

Records that may matter

• Dates of gynecological or obstetric appointments at CIW.
• Any health care requests or forms you filled out.
• Grievances or complaints you filed, and any responses.
• Letters, journal entries or notes written at the time.
• Records of care you received after release, including counseling.

If you are no longer incarcerated

You may be able to request copies of your prison medical records. A participating law firm can often request records for you, which can save time and stress. Keep any paperwork you received at release.

If you avoided care because you were afraid

The proposed “deterred” class includes people who stayed away from gynecological care out of fear. If that describes you, your records may look different. Instead of exam notes, helpful information may include:

• Health care requests you started but did not submit, or appointments you refused.
• Notes or letters where you told someone you were afraid to be seen.
• Names of people you confided in at the time.
• Any health problems that went untreated or were found later.

Avoiding care is not a failure on your part. It is one of the harms the case describes. Write down what you remember about why you stayed away, and share it with a firm when you are ready.

Writing down what you remember

A private written account can help you share your story later without having to recall everything at once. Include approximate dates, what you were told before exams and whether a chaperone was present. You do not have to describe painful details in writing if you do not want to. It is fine to say “I will share more in person.”

Keep your notes in a safe place. If you are in custody, ask a firm how to send or store information privately, since mail may be read.

Legal Terms Used in the Dr. Scott Lee Lawsuit

Court filings in the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit use legal terms that can be hard to follow. Here are plain-English meanings of some that come up often. These are general descriptions, not legal advice.

• Eighth Amendment: The part of the U.S. Constitution that bans cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have applied it to medical care in prisons.
• Deliberate indifference: A standard courts often use in prison medical cases. In general, it asks whether officials knew of a serious risk of harm and disregarded it.
• Section 1983: A federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that is commonly used to bring civil rights claims against state officials.
• Bane Act: A California civil rights law aimed at interference with a person’s rights through threats, intimidation or coercion.
• Ralph Act: A California law protecting the right to be free from violence or threats of violence based on traits such as sex.
• Motion to dismiss: A request asking the court to throw out claims before evidence is gathered.
• Amended complaint: An updated version of the lawsuit, often filed after a court ruling.
• Injunctive relief: A court order requiring changes, such as new policies or training.
• Class certification: The court’s decision on whether the named plaintiffs can represent a larger group.
• Mediation: A meeting with a neutral third party to explore settlement.
• Pseudonym: A substitute name, like “Jane Doe,” that the court has allowed in this case.

What changes the case is asking for

Beyond money damages, the Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit asks the court to order changes at CIW. As described earlier, those include staff training, reviews of medical procedures and required chaperones during gynecological exams. If granted, changes like these would apply to current and future patients, not only to the women named in the case.

Whether the court orders any of these changes will depend on how the case develops. No court has ruled on these requests yet.

Questions to Ask About the Dr. Scott Lee Lawsuit

If you decide to speak with a participating law firm, these questions may help you understand where you stand:

• Am I likely to fall within one of the proposed classes?
• Would I need to file my own claim, or would a class judgment cover me?
• How does the January 2026 ruling affect claims like mine?
• What deadlines may apply, including California’s government claim rules and AB 2777?
• Can I keep my name private?
• How will you protect me from retaliation if I am still in custody?
• How will we communicate if I am incarcerated?
• What happens if I am moved to another facility or released?

Caring for yourself

Medical abuse can affect how a person feels about future care, including routine exams. That reaction is common. Some survivors find it helps to ask for a chaperone or a provider of a certain gender, to have exams explained step by step, or to bring a support person when allowed.

Talking with a counselor who understands trauma can help, too. The Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit is moving slowly, and your healing does not have to wait for the court.

Frequently asked questions

How Direct2Attorney can help

If you were a patient of the CIW gynecologist, or you avoided care because you were afraid, you deserve to be heard. Direct2Attorney can connect you with a participating law firm that may review your situation confidentially and explain your options.

Visit our Dr. Scott Lee lawsuit page to learn more. You can also read about broader claims on our California Institution for Women abuse page.

Direct2Attorney is a legal marketing and referral service, not a law firm. This article is general information, not legal advice. Submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship.