Oakland, CA – Last night, a federal judge rejected the State of California’s attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit challenging prolonged solitary confinement in California’s notorious Pelican Bay prison. The case was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and partners on behalf of prisoners in the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit (SHU) who have spent between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement and who staged two widely publicized hunger strikes in 2011. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) had asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the prisoners had failed to adequately allege cruel and unusual punishment and due process violations. CDCR also asked the court to find that the case was moot in light of a two-year pilot program that purports to reform the procedures CDCR uses before indefinitely placing a prisoner in solitary confinement. The Judge disagreed, ruling that the pilot program did not moot claims that California’s use of solitary confinement denies the prisoners’ right to due process, and finding that the case raised grave Eighth Amendment claims.
Said Center for Constitutional Rights President and lead attorney Jules Lobel, “Hundreds of prisoners have languished under inhumane, torturous and unconstitutional conditions at the Pelican Bay SHU for over a decade – and many for more than 20 years – without any meaningful way of securing their release. The court’s decision ensures that these prisoners will have their day in court, and will give them an opportunity to shed light on the devastating toll of prolonged solitary confinement.”
In March, the Center for Constitutional Rights argued that the reforms implemented as part of the pilot program contain the same constitutional problems challenged in the lawsuit and have not had any effect on the plaintiffs in the case. SHU prisoners spend 22 ½ to 24 hours every day in a cramped, concrete, windowless cell. They are denied telephone calls, any physical contact with visitors, and vocational, recreational and educational programming. As of 2011, more than 500 Pelican Bay SHU prisoners had been isolated under these conditions for over 10 years; more than 200 had been there for over 15 years; and 78 had been isolated in the SHU for more than 20 years. According to attorneys, solitary confinement for as little as 15 days is widely recognized to cause lasting psychological damage and is analyzed as torture under international law. The pilot program implemented by the CDCR still allows for prisoners to be confined in extreme isolation for decades.
The judge’s ruling states that “this case presents unique circumstances, given the length and severity of the deprivations alleged….Five of the Plaintiffs here allege that they have lived in the SHU, with minimal human contact, for more than twenty consecutive years: even within the ‘context of the prison system,’ this represents a significant deprivation of liberty.”
Said Carol Strickman of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, “We are gratified to receive the court’s ruling today. We are now gathering the evidence to prove our claims. In May, we will be filing a motion to certify the case as a class action suit, which will expand the number of prisoners who will benefit from our ultimate victory.”
In addition to refusing to dismiss the case, the court denied California’s request to stay, for the duration of the pilot program, the case’s due process claim, which alleges that prisoners are denied meaningful review of their SHU placement, rendering their isolation effectively permanent. Attorneys say that under the pilot program prisoners can still be placed and held in the SHU absent any gang activity, violent conduct, or serious rule infraction; they may still be labeled gang “affiliates” and confined in isolation for activities such as reading about Black history, creating or possessing cultural artwork, or writing in Swahili; and they still must wait years between each opportunity for review. Moreover, they say, even since the pilot program was implemented, some of the plaintiffs have been denied release from the SHU explicitly under the old policy. The court wrote, “Although [Defendants] have submitted a hundred-page CDCR memorandum describing the new program, they have not shown that any of the program’s new procedures are permanent.”
SHU assignments disproportionately affect Latino prisoners. The percentage of Latinos in the Pelican Bay SHU was 85 percent in 2011, far higher than their representation in the general prison population, which was 41 percent.
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Prison Focus, Siegel & Yee, and the Law Offices of Charles Carbone are co-counsel on the case.
The case is Ashker v. Brown, and it amends an earlier pro se lawsuit filed by Pelican Bay SHU prisoners Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell. The case is before Judge Claudia Wilken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Read last night’s decision here.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.