EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: Patrick Jones Continues $56 Million Lawsuit Against DA Stephanie Bridgett
- Rex Ballard
- Apr 24
- 3 min read
Jones Disputes County’s Independent Investigation Findings
As first reported by Shasta Unfiltered in December 2025, former Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones filed a major civil lawsuit in Shasta County Superior Court against District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett and Shasta County, seeking approximately $56 million in combined damages and punitive awards. Click here for that article
In his April 19, 2026, appearance on Jefferson State of Mine (KCNR Radio), Jones provided a detailed update on the ongoing case. He confirmed the lawsuit remains active, with the next court hearing scheduled for the first week of August 2026.
The suit alleges that Bridgett and members of her staff misused county-paid time, resources, and taxpayer funds for her 2022 re-election campaign — and that the practice continued from January 2022 through December 2024. Jones claims the misconduct contributed to roughly 800 criminal cases being dismissed during that period.
Board-Authorized Independent Investigation Cleared Bridgett of “Serious” Violations
Following an internal whistleblower complaint filed on March 16, 2023, the Board of Supervisors authorized an independent investigation by John Beiers, an attorney in San Carlos, California. That investigation ultimately cleared Bridgett of any “serious” policy violations.
Jones, who became the second whistleblower, disclosing his own personal observations, after reviewing the report, strongly disagrees with both the scope and the conclusions of Beiers’ investigation. He has repeatedly stated that the probe was superficial — interviewing only about five out of roughly 100 DA office staff — and failed to thoroughly examine the extent of the alleged campaigning on county time.
“Because County Counsel failed to take appropriate action and I do not agree with the findings or believe the investigation was properly carried out, I had no choice but to file this private lawsuit,” Jones told listeners on the April 19 broadcast.
Jones said he appeared before the Board of Supervisors at least a dozen times, pressing County Counsel Joseph Larmour, the CEO, and board leadership to pursue fraud recovery against the DA. Despite Bridgett’s alleged admission to portions of the activity, the Board voted 4-1 on June 24, 2025 (Supervisor Kevin Crye dissenting) to hire outside counsel to defend both the county and the DA at taxpayer expense.
Jones argues this decision violates Government Code §995.2(a), which states a public entity need not defend an employee when the act involves fraud, corruption, or malice outside the scope of employment. He intends to ask the court to require Bridgett to defend herself personally and reimburse the county.
Sweeping Discovery Planned
Jones’s attorney has indicated that, if the case proceeds, they will pursue comprehensive discovery, including subpoenas for time sheets, emails, and depositions of up to 100 current and former DA office employees.
Jones also referenced earlier incidents during the Leonard Moti recall effort, in which DA investigators allegedly threatened two young female recall proponents with arrest, jail time, and Child Protective Services involvement over legally permissible signature practices.
DA’s Office Response
Bridgett has consistently denied directing staff to campaign on county time. She has maintained that the independent investigation found “no violations of law” and has described any admitted policy infractions (such as using personal devices on county premises for campaign messages) as minor and non-criminal. The DA’s office maintains that operations were not materially impacted.
The case continues to be closely watched as Shasta County heads into the June 2026 primary election cycle.
Shasta Unfiltered will continue tracking this lawsuit and all related county accountability stories. Share this article and stay informed.
