Court Dismisses Former Supervisor’s Lawsuit Against DA Bridgett

REDDING — August 7, 2026

A Butte County Judge on rotation for Shasta County Superior Court has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit filed by former Supervisor Patrick Jones against District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett and the County of Shasta, ending the case at the pleading stage. All Shasta County judges recused themselves from the case because of prior professional dealings with the District Attorney’s Office that could create a conflict of interest.

Jones filed the suit in late 2025, seeking tens of millions in damages. He alleged that Bridgett misused taxpayer-funded time and resources by conducting reelection campaign activities while at the District Attorney’s Office during her 2022 campaign. Jones pointed to Bridgett’s own acknowledgment that she handled some campaign-related communications, including on her personal cell phone, while on county premises during work hours. A whistleblower complaint had further claimed that an employee spent the majority of her work time on campaign business during regular county hours.

An independent investigation commissioned by the county later found that Bridgett performed limited campaign-related activities on county property but concluded she did not require or authorize staff to campaign on county time. Investigators described the violations as minor.  Jones criticized the investigation as limited, noting the investigators interviewed only five employees (including Bridgett) out of about 70. Jones emphasized the report's shortcomings, reinforcing his call for a more comprehensive review, which was never performed.

On August 7, 2026, the judge sustained demurrers (legal challenges) filed by both Bridgett and the County to Jones’ First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The court ruled that the claims for unfair competition, constructive fraud, and conversion failed to state valid causes of action under California law. Underlying that conclusion, however, was the absence of the kind of concrete, particularized injury and legal relationship required for standing or a viable claim by an individual taxpayer. A general grievance shared by all taxpayers is insufficient to confer standing. Both defendants were dismissed from the case.

The County is seeking both costs and attorney’s fees from plaintiff Jones. While a prevailing party may recover routine court costs, attorney’s fees are generally not available unless authorized by a contract between the parties or by a specific statute. No such contract exists here, and the lawsuit does not appear to meet the high threshold of being frivolous or brought in bad faith that would justify a sanctions-based fee award.