Riverside County’s bid to harm animals with impunity rejected by court
This and other news for the week ending April 4, 2025
In other news: Animal Evaluation Matrix (2025). Upheaval continues in Austin, TX. Several states consider bans on cat declawing. Another week, another pet food recall. Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. A new cat color has been discovered. A butter made from thin air. Impossible corn dogs and sliders. County pound gives dogs a death sentence by suspending “pit bull” adoptions. Federal officials rescue the largest number of dogs ever from a dog fighting ring.
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Court refuses to dismiss lawsuit alleging waste, neglect, rampant killing, and illegality at Riverside County pound
Riverside County officials argued in court that a lawsuit should be dismissed because taxpayers, citizens, residents, and animal lovers have no recourse when the pound violates the law, neglects and kills animals, hires unskilled and inept relatives, or wastes money on a consultant with a track record of defending abuse, instead of spending it on animals who are sick, injured, or traumatized. The Court rejected their bid to dismiss the case.
As reported previously, a lawsuit against the Riverside County pound alleged that,
The photographs above were taken by a community member visiting the San Jacinto facility of [Riverside County Department of Animal Services] RCDAS. What she saw was appalling — the dog in the picture on the left had been dead for some period of time and the dog pictured on right was laying on an excrement-covered floor with more excrement on the dog’s body…
The lawsuit alleges that “these disturbing photographs of animal cruelty are emblematic of the fundamental failings and pervasive deficiencies, the inertia and inaction, of RCDAS,” representing “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure to follow California law by RCDAS.” Given these allegations, it is hardly surprising that the Riverside County pound “killed more animals than any other reporting shelter in the United States.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the pound releases animals unspayed and unneutered, violating a law prohibiting it. It also asserts that taxpayer funds were wasted in the nepotistic hiring of an incompetent and unskilled pound director and a consultant with a track record of abject failure and harm to animals.
In court, Riverside County officials didn’t dispute that they neglect, abuse, and kill animals. They do. They did not dispute that they released animals unspayed and unneutered in violation of law. They do. And they didn’t dispute that they spent and continue to spend what will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars with the nepotistic hiring of a pound director and consultant who should not have been hired given their lack of ability or desire to save animals. Again, they are.
Instead, they asked the Court to dismiss the case by arguing that no one should be able to hold them accountable for it. Specifically, they argued that petitioners lack standing to sue and should not be able to do so, that the harm alleged by petitioners is “abstract,” and that state law — specifically, the Hayden Act — is an “unfunded mandate” that can’t be enforced. Enacted in 1998, the Hayden Act sets forth legislative findings emphasizing the importance of humane treatment for shelter animals. It requires “shelters” to provide adequate care and treatment for injured animals and prioritize adoption over killing. That this needs to be spelled out in law — followed by a lawsuit — to get them to do so boggles the mind.
Riverside County officials want to continue killing and neglecting animals with impunity. They want to be able to make hiring decisions based on nepotism rather than merit. And they do not want to spend money for prompt and necessary veterinary care and other animal needs, such as spay/neuter. Instead, they want to give millions to a consultant who promotes closing the door to needy animals and leaving them on the street and who has defended abuse and abusers and even promoted the notion that shelters should breed dogs.
Thankfully, the Court rejected most of Riverside County’s arguments and declined to dismiss the case. Of immediate importance, the Court correctly ruled that much of the Hayden Act remains enforceable, and other obligations, like providing emergency veterinary care to animals, predate that Act. But petitioners are not out of the woods yet.
The Court did dismiss one cause of action related to alleged Public Records Act violations. It also gave petitioners 30 days to amend other claims, such as the waste of taxpayer funds, ruling that they were not alleged with enough specificity. As such, the Court may still dismiss them at a later date. Moreover, the Court’s ruling only allows the case to proceed; it doesn’t necessarily mean that petitioners will win — and thus, the animals will get the care and protection they need and deserve.
Given Riverside County’s refusal to provide that care and protection, the jury is literally and figuratively still out on whether the animals will ultimately get it.
Stay tuned…
Animal Evaluation Matrix (2025)