California’s solitary confinement laws restrict isolation in state prisons to placements tied to specific serious misconduct, cap how long someone can be held in a Restricted Housing Unit, guarantee a minimum of 20 hours out of cell per week, and require a disciplinary hearing before placement. These rules come from a mix of state regulations that became permanent in July 2024, the 2015 federal settlement in Ashker v. Governor, and constitutional case law.1California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Notice of Approval of Certificate of Compliance – Restricted Housing Units They apply to the state prison system. County jails are a separate story.
What California Calls Solitary Confinement
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation doesn’t use the phrase “solitary confinement.” The old categories were the Security Housing Unit (SHU), Administrative Segregation (Ad Seg), and the Psychiatric Services Unit. In November 2023, emergency regulations collapsed six prior housing types into three under one umbrella term, “Restricted Housing Unit,” or RHU.2California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action – Restricted Housing Units
The three current categories are:
- General Population RHU, for people outside the mental health system who need restricted placement.
- Correctional Clinical Case Management System RHU, secure housing with enhanced mental health care for people with diagnosed psychiatric disorders who don’t need inpatient treatment.
- Enhanced Outpatient Program RHU, the highest mental health tier within restricted housing.3California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Restricted Housing
The relabeling reflects a policy shift: restricted housing is meant to be temporary and driven by conduct, not a long-term status assigned to someone based on who they associate with.
When Someone Can Be Placed in Restricted Housing
Placement has to be tied to specific behavior threatening safety or institutional security. Before 2015, California routinely sent people to the SHU for indefinite periods based only on validation as a prison gang member, whether or not they had broken any rule. The settlement in Ashker v. Governor of California ended that. The state moved from a status-based system to a behavior-based one.4United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ashker v Newsom
Now, a person can only be sent to restricted housing after being found guilty at a hearing of a serious rule violation such as assault, battery, weapons possession, or an escape attempt. Placement can also be used for protective custody when someone’s personal safety is verified as being in serious danger. Either way, staff have to document the specific behavior justifying the placement, not point to a reputation or affiliation.
How Long Placement Can Last
Ending indeterminate SHU sentences was the biggest change from the Ashker settlement. Under the old system, a validated gang affiliate could sit in the SHU for their entire prison term, with the only exit being “debriefing,” or informing on their gang. The settlement imposed two caps: California can no longer impose indeterminate SHU sentences, and no one can be held involuntarily in the Pelican Bay SHU for longer than five years for any reason.5Center for Constitutional Rights. Summary of Ashker v Governor of California Settlement Terms
For gang-validated individuals found guilty of a SHU-eligible offense tied to gang activity, the settlement created a four-step, 24-month Step-Down Program. Each step lasts about six months, with gradually increasing privileges including phone calls and some rehabilitative programming. After completing the program, the person must be released to general population unless they commit another serious rule violation during the process.
Under the current regulations, anyone expected to remain on SHU status beyond 360 days must receive a documented annual review. A person can’t be held past the expiration of their determinate restricted housing term, or past 360 days, unless a classification committee specifically determines continued placement is required. People in restricted housing can also earn credits: for every 20 hours of completed rehabilitative programming, they get five days off their release date from restricted housing, up to 25 percent of their set term.
Conditions Required Inside Restricted Housing
Current regulations require that living conditions in restricted housing approximate general population, with exceptions only for physical layout and necessary security measures.6Legal Information Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 15 3348 – Conditions of Restricted Housing The specific requirements:
- A minimum of 20 hours out of cell per week, with at least 10 hours dedicated to exercise spread over at least three days. Remaining hours can include group programs, education, and rehabilitative programming.
- The same food and portions as general population, though a sandwich may substitute for a hot lunch. Food deprivation as punishment is prohibited.
- No degrading clothing distinctions. Temporary adjustments are allowed only for security or self-harm prevention.
- Access to the same publications, books, and newspapers available to general population, though quantity may be limited for security reasons.
- Access to education, commissary, library services, counseling, religious guidance, and recreation to the extent they can be provided without compromising safety.
The 20-hour minimum is a floor, not a guarantee. The regulation includes a carve-out allowing less out-of-cell time when “security and safety considerations preclude such activity,” which leaves prison officials substantial discretion.
Hearing Rights Before Placement
Before California can place someone in restricted housing for a disciplinary violation, the person is entitled to procedural protections the Supreme Court set out in Wolff v. McDonnell. These fall short of a full trial but include:
- Written notice of the charges at least 24 hours before the hearing.
- An opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence.
- A written statement from the decision-maker explaining the evidence relied on.7Justia Law. Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539 (1974)
Officials can restrict the right to call witnesses when they determine it would be hazardous to institutional safety, but they must document that determination. That exception gets invoked more often than you might expect, and advocates argue it’s an area where the process falls short.
Beyond these hearing rights, the Supreme Court held in Wilkinson v. Austin that placement in a supermax facility imposes such an atypical and significant hardship that people have a protected liberty interest in avoiding it, requiring meaningful procedural protections before placement.8Legal Information Institute. Wilkinson v Austin
How to Challenge a Placement
Before filing a federal lawsuit over a restricted housing placement, federal law requires exhausting the prison’s internal grievance procedures. That requirement comes from the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which bars any lawsuit about prison conditions until administrative remedies have been used up.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1997e – Suits by Prisoners
The Supreme Court has recognized narrow exceptions. Exhaustion is not required when prison officials are consistently unwilling to provide relief, when the grievance process is so confusing that no ordinary person could navigate it, or when officials actively thwart the process through intimidation or deception. Outside those situations, skipping the internal grievance path will get a case dismissed.
Pregnancy and the Failed Mandela Act
California legislators have pushed for statutory limits on isolation with mixed results. Assembly Bill 2632, the “California Mandela Act,” would have capped solitary confinement at 15 consecutive days and banned it entirely for pregnant people, those under 26 or over 60, and people with certain mental or physical disabilities. It would have applied to state prisons, county jails, and immigration detention. Governor Newsom vetoed it in September 2022, saying the bill was “overly broad” and that its categorical exclusions “could risk the safety of both the staff and incarcerated population.”10Governor of California. AB 2632 Veto Message
A narrower measure passed in 2024. Assembly Bill 2527 dealt with solitary confinement for pregnant people specifically, as part of a broader bill on nutrition and care for pregnant and postpartum women in custody. The version signed into law applies only to state prisons and permits isolation of pregnant people for up to five days in certain cases rather than banning it. Advocates raised concern that the law codifies, for the first time in California statute, that placing pregnant women in isolation is permissible within that window.
The restricted housing regulations that took effect in November 2023 and became permanent in July 2024 were, in part, CDCR’s response to Newsom’s veto directive. They fall well short of what the Mandela Act would have required.
County Jails Aren’t Covered
The rules described above govern the state prison system. California’s 58 counties each run their own jails with their own definitions of isolation and their own practices. No statewide statute sets maximum durations or conditions for isolation in county jails. The Board of State and Community Corrections sets some baseline standards and inspects facilities, but county sheriffs retain broad discretion over how and when isolation is used. The Mandela Act would have covered jails and detention centers; its veto left this gap in place. For someone held in a county jail rather than a state prison, the CDCR regulations, the Ashker caps, and the step-down program don’t apply.