Lawsuit: End neglect, abuse, and summary execution of Riverside County animals
As reported previously, a lawsuit against Riverside County alleges animal cruelty and “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure to follow California law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the pound releases unspayed and unneutered animals, in violation of a law prohibiting it. It also asserts that taxpayer funds were wasted on the nepotistic hiring of an incompetent, unskilled pound director and on a $2.45 million contract with a consultant who has a track record of abject failure and animal harm.
In court, Riverside County officials didn’t dispute that they neglect, abuse, and kill animals. They did not dispute the release of unspayed and unneutered animals. And they didn’t dispute spending what will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars on the hiring of a consultant who advocates leaving animals on the street, has defended abuse and abusers, and even promoted shelters breeding dogs. Instead, they asked the Court to dismiss the case, contending that they should not be held accountable. The Court rejected most of these claims (one dismissed count for waste of taxpayer funds is on appeal).
Now, the volunteers and rescuers who filed the lawsuit are seeking a preliminary injunction (an order by the Court) to compel the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) to:
Stop killing animals who are not irremediably suffering;
Acquire additional kennels, even temporarily, to house animals;
Provide reasonable and necessary medical care, nutrition, and housing; and,
Stop releasing unspayed animals.
Petitioners base their request on:
Statistical evidence that the pound is killing, on average, 11 animals per day;
Admissions by the current director that they are killing “for space”;
Evidence, including photographs of sick and injured animals who are not receiving veterinary care or pain management; and,
The killing of healthy and treatable animals, despite rescue attempts.
In addition to being inhumane, petitioners allege that the pound’s actions are illegal, citing violations of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law (Hayden Act), including its requirement of veterinary care and humane treatment, and local ordinances that mandate pre-adoption sterilization and prohibit summary destruction of an animal unless vicious or irremediably suffering. Petitioners allege that “irreparable harm” to animals will result if the injunction is denied, up to and including death of animals.
The court is scheduled to hear the motion on February 10. Stay tuned…
The case is Woodruff v. Gettis. Rescuers, volunteers, and animals are represented by Walter Clark and Dan Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group. Learn more by clicking here.
Together, not only will we save lives, we will create a future where every animal is respected and cherished, and every individual life is protected and revered.