USA: the edge
of endUrAnce

PRISON CONDITIONS IN
CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY
HOUSING UNITS

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters,
members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign
to end grave abuses of human rights.
our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal
declaration of human rights and other international human rights standards.
We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or
religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations.

first published in 2012 by
Amnesty International Ltd
Peter Benenson house
1 easton Street
London Wc1X 0dW
United Kingdom
© Amnesty International 2012
Index: AMr 51/060/2012 english
original language: english
Printed by Amnesty International,
International Secretariat, United Kingdom
All rights reserved. this publication is copyright, but may
be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy,
campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale.
the copyright holders request that all such use be registered
with them for impact assessment purposes. for copying in
any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications,
or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must
be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable.
to request permission, or for any other inquiries, please
contact copyright@amnesty.org
Cover photo: A corridor inside the Security housing Unit
at Pelican Bay State Prison, california, USA, August 2011.
© rina Palta/KALW

amnesty.org

CONTENTS
1. Introduction and overview ......................................................................................... 2
I.

Scope of the report….………………………………………………………………….... 4

2. Background……………………………………………………………….………………………. 5
I.
II.

California SHU reform proposals and realignment
The 2011 hunger strike……..…………………………….………..…………..………. 7

3. International law and standards on the treatment of prisoners and use of solitary
confinement……..……………………………………………………………………….………….. 9
4. US law and standards………………………………………………………………………..… 11
5. Conditions in Pelican bay SHU……………………………..………………………………… 14
I.

Conditions inside the cells……………………………………………………............ 15

II.

Lexan cells…….………………….……………………………………..…………….… 18

III.

Exercise………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

IV.

Conditions unnecessarily and disproportionately harsh……………………..………. 19

6. Conditions in Corcoran SHU………………………………………………………………...… 21
7. Contact with the outside world………………………………………………………….…..… 22
8. In-cell programming and privileges…………………………………………………………… 25
9. Psychological and physical effects of confinement: Madrid v Gomez and beyond………. 27
10. Suicides……………………………………………………………………………...……..…. 29
11. Long terms effects of isolation………………………………………………………………. 31
12. Medical care and mental health care in SHU housing
I.

Medical care……………………………..……………………………………………… 33

II.

Mental health care……………………………………………………………………… 35

III.

Mental health monitoring of prisoners in Pelican Bay SHU………………………... 36

IV.

Corcoran and Enhanced Outpatient hub……………………………………………… 37

13. Women prisoners in the SHU……………………………………………….……………..… 39
14. Criteria and current procedures for SHU assignments………………………….………..…..…… 42
I.

Prisoners serving indeterminate SHU terms on the basis of gang validations….… 43

II.

Concerns about gang validation criteria………………………………………………. 44

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

III.

Concerns about due process and the harsh consequences of an indeterminate SHU
assignment………………………………………………………………………………. 44

15. CDCR's proposed reforms of criteria for indeterminate SHU assignments and introduction
of step-down program…………………………………………………………………………….. 47
I.

The Step down procedure……………………………………………………………… 49

II.

Concerns about continued isolation during the step-down program……………….. 50

16. Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………. 52

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

1

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
More than 3,000 prisoners in California are held in high security isolation units known as
Security Housing Units (SHUs), where they are confined for at least 22 and a half hours a
day in single or double cells, with no work or meaningful rehabilitation programs or group
activities of any kind. Over 1,000 are held in the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison, a remote
facility where most prisoners are confined alone in cells which have no windows to the
outside or direct access to natural light. SHU prisoners are isolated both within prison and
from meaningful contacts with the outside world: contact with correctional staff is kept to a
minimum, and consultations with medical, mental health and other staff routinely take place
behind barriers; all visits, including family and legal visits, are also non-contact, with
prisoners separated from their visitors behind a glass screen.
Under California regulations, the SHU is intended for prisoners whose conduct endangers the
safety of others or the security of the institution. Around a third of the current population are
serving fixed SHU terms of SHU confinement (ranging from a few months to several years)
after being found guilty through the internal disciplinary system of specific offences while in
custody. However, more than 2,000 prisoners are serving “indeterminate” (indefinite) SHU
terms because they have been “validated” by the prison authorities as members or associates
of prison gangs. According to figures provided by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2011, more than 500 prisoners serving indeterminate SHU
terms had spent ten or more years in the Pelican Bay SHU; of this number, more than 200
had spent over 15 years in the SHU and 78 more than 20 years. Many had been in the SHU
since it opened in 1989, held in conditions of extreme isolation and environmental
deprivation.
No other US state is believed to have held so many prisoners for such long periods in
indefinite isolation. The main route out of the SHU for prisoners with alleged gang
connections has been to “debrief”, a process requiring them to provide information on other
gang members which many decline to undertake because of the threat of retaliation.
Although prisoners may also be released from the SHU if they have been “inactive” as a gang
member or associate for six years, many prisoners have been held long beyond this period.
Until now, these prisoners have had no means of leaving the SHU through their own positive
behaviour or through participating in programs. Many prisoners have spent decades in
isolation despite reportedly being free of any serious rule violations and - if they are serving a
“term to life” sentence – without any means of earning parole. Prisoner advocates and others
have criticized the gang validation process as unreliable and lacking adequate safeguards,
allowing prisoners to be consigned to indefinite isolation without evidence of any specific
illegal activity, or on the basis of tenuous gang associations, on evidence often provided by
anonymous informants.
In March 2012, the CDCR put forward proposals which, for the first time, would provide a
“step-down program” (SDP) for prisoners serving indeterminate SHU terms, using what the
department has called a “behaviour-based model” to enable them to earn their way back to
the general prison population. Amnesty International welcomes in principle plans to provide
a route out of isolation through prisoners’ own behaviour. However, the SDP – which would
take place in four stages, each lasting a minimum of one-year – does not allow any group
interaction for at least the first two years. No changes to the physical conditions of
confinement are proposed for the Pelican Bay SHU, where prisoners would spend at least two
years in the same isolated conditions of cellular confinement as they are now. Prisoners
could still be held in indefinite isolation if they fail to meet the criteria for the SDP. In
continuing to confine prisoners in prolonged isolation – albeit with shorter minimum terms
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

2

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

than under the present system – California would still fall short of international law and
standards for humane treatment and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.
Amnesty International does not seek to minimize the challenges faced by prison
administrators in dealing with prison gangs and individuals who are a threat to institutional
security and recognizes that it may sometimes be necessary to segregate prisoners for
disciplinary or security purposes. However, all measures must be consistent with states’
obligation under international law and standards to treat all prisoners humanely. In
recognition of the negative effects of such treatment, international and regional human rights
bodies and experts have called on states to limit their use of solitary confinement, so that it
is imposed only in exceptional circumstances for as short a period as possible. As described
below, Amnesty International considers that the conditions of isolation and other deprivations
imposed on prisoners in California’s SHU units breach international standards on humane
treatment. The cumulative effects of such conditions, particularly when imposed for
prolonged or indefinite periods, and the severe environmental deprivation in Pelican Bay
SHU, in particular, amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of
international law.
Amnesty International’s recommendations to the California authorities, developed in more
detail at the end of the report, include:
Limiting the use of isolation in a SHU or similar environment so that is it imposed only
as a last resort in the case of prisoners whose behaviour constitutes a severe and ongoing
threat to the safety of others or the security of the institution.

Improving conditions for all prisoners held in SHUs, including better exercise provision
and an opportunity for more human contact for prisoners, even at the most restrictive custody
levels.

Allowing SHU prisoners to make regular phone calls to their families.

Reducing the length of the Step down Program and providing meaningful access to
programs where prisoners have an opportunity for some group contact and interaction with
others at an earlier stage.
Immediate removal from isolation of prisoners who have already spent years in the SHU
under an indeterminate assignment.


In making these recommendations, Amnesty International is aware that CDCR has faced a
number of challenges in recent years, including cuts to its budget for rehabilitation programs.
However, as its own figures show, the SHUs cost significantly more to run than general prison
population facilities, despite providing the barest minimum amenities for those confined in
them. As some other states have shown, cutting down on “supermax” confinement has
released resources for alternative strategies to improve prisoner behaviour, including gang
diversion programs.
Table 1: Pelican Bay Annual housing costs 2010-2011 as provided by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/Pelican_Bay.pdf

Security
Housing Unit
(SHU)

General
Population (GP)

Administrative
Segregation
Unit (ASU)

Psychiatric
Services Unit
(PSU)

Inmate
Population

1, 111 inmates

1, 271 inmates

403 inmates

116 inmates

Annual housing
costs

$70, 641 per
SHU inmate

$58, 324 per
GP inmate

$77, 740 per
ASU inmate

$171, 857 per
PSU inmate

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

3

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Amnesty International recognizes that the responsibility for implementing humane and
effective prison programs does not lie solely with the prison department but also with the
state legislature and other branches of government. The organization urges these bodies to
ensure that CDCR is able to fulfil its obligations by providing adequate funding for programs
that will ultimately enhance public safety as well as humane treatment for those
incarcerated.

SCOPE OF THE REPORT
In November 2011, an Amnesty International delegation toured the SHU units at Pelican Bay
State Prison, the California State Prison at Corcoran and Valley State Prison for Women.
During the tours, the delegates were able to speak with a number of prisoners as well as with
prison staff. 1 This report includes findings from these tours as well as information from
sources including CDCR, prisoners, prisoner advocates and human rights groups in California.
It contains the organization’s comments and observations on the new reform proposals and
makes recommendations, with reference to international and US standards. Amnesty
International welcomes the openness of CDCR in granting its request to visit the facilities.
The organization notes that the department has been in dialogue with a range of stakeholders
and others in preparing its reform proposals, including the “mediation team” of advocates
who liaised with prisoners during the recent hunger strike (see below). It hopes that CDCR
will consider the recommendations in this report along with those of other parties.
Amnesty International’s report focuses mainly on conditions in the SHUs at Pelican Bay and
Corcoran, the two facilities which house most of the state’s SHU population which is
overwhelmingly male. Fifty-eight women were housed in the Valley State Prison SHU at the
time of Amnesty International’s visit. However, the unit has since closed and female SHU
prisoners transferred to the California Institution to Women. Only a few women in California
are serving indeterminate SHU terms for alleged gang associations; most are reportedly
serving fixed terms for disciplinary infractions. Apart from some specific gender-based issues
relating to the role of male staff and privacy in women’s security housing, its
recommendations on conditions apply to all SHU prisoners.
Following Amnesty International’s visit, the organization sought information from CDCR on
the demographics of SHU prisoners, including race, age and committal offence, which the
department had indicated it would provide. The organization is disappointed that this and
other information requested following its visit had not been made available at the time of
writing. However, a study looking at the race of prisoners paroled from CDCR in 2007 who
had previously served SHU terms showed that 55% were Hispanic, more than their
proportion of the overall parole population that year (42%); 25.8% were White, slightly under
their proportion of the parole population (29.4), while 15.9% were Black, less than their
proportion (23.5%) of parolees in general. 2 This indicates that the racial/ethnic composition
of prisoners in the SHU units generally reflects the racial make-up of prison gangs, although
not all gang members or associates are reportedly leaders or play a major role in gang
activity. 3
With regard to age, the minimum age for entry into the adult prison system is 18. According
to CDCR statistics, 13.5% of the adult institutional population in December 2009 was aged
between 18 and 24, with 30% aged between 18 and 30. 15.5% were aged 50 and over,
with the mean age being 37. Out of nine prisoners Amnesty International interviewed in the
SHU, two were under 20 when they entered the SHU.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

4

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

2. BACKGROUND

A watchtower at Pelican Bay State Prison. Image courtesy of Rina Palta

California is one of more than 40 US states to house prisoners in high security isolation
facilities, often termed “super-maximum security” prisons. Although no exact data is
available, as many as 25,000 prisoners are estimated to be held in such facilities, with
thousands more held in solitary confinement for varying periods in disciplinary or
administrative segregation cells at any given time. 4 While prison authorities have always
been able to segregate prisoners for their own protection or as a penalty for disciplinary
offences, super-maximum security facilities differ in that they are designed to remove large
numbers of prisoners from the general prison population and confine them long-term to
isolation cells as an administrative control measure. States started building such prisons (or
units within prisons) from the late 1980s, with the largest expansion during the 1990s. 5
Early research on the extent of super-maximum security custody in the USA in the 1990s
had California with the highest number of places. Although accounting for almost 15% of the
total of such beds, California nevertheless came close to the state average for the proportion
of prisoners in such conditions – 1.9% as against the average of 1.8% - because its total
prison population was so large. 6 This contrasted markedly with, for example, the United
Kingdom which then held about 50 or 0.1% of its 45,000 prisoners in its highest and most
restrictive form of custody for control purposes in Close Supervision Centres.
The growth of super-maximum security facilities has been linked to the huge rise in the
numbers of people incarcerated in the USA from the late 1970s onwards, together with a
shift away from rehabilitation as a goal of imprisonment to more emphasis on punishment
and control. Between 1980 and 2009 the US prison population quadrupled to reach more
than two million, an increase largely driven by heavier penalties resulting in more people
serving longer sentences than ever before. As prison building costs escalated, many states
cut funding for rehabilitation, education and other programs. With prisoners held in
overcrowded conditions, many of them young and under-educated and with little to occupy
themselves, incidents of violence and disorder increased.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

5

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

The rationale given by the authorities for building super-maximum facilities was that isolating
the most dangerous or disruptive prisoners would make the rest of the prison population
safer. Although super-maximum prisons undoubtedly house some highly dangerous offenders,
it has been shown that not all prisoners fit this category; many prisoners who end up in such
units have mental illness or behavioural problems and have sometimes been confined for
repeated, relatively minor rule infractions and disruptive behaviour. While prisoners are
usually placed in such facilities as an “administrative” measure, the conditions – as seen in
California and elsewhere – are often highly punitive in effect, with prisoners confined alone to
small cells with few possessions or amenities and no access to work, vocational or other
programs. As described below, the rationale for such facilities has been increasingly
challenged, on grounds of the negative effects of such confinement on prisoners’ mental and
physical health, as well as on grounds of their cost and effectiveness as a management tool.
California was at the forefront of moves to toughen penalties, and its prison population
escalated during the 1980s and 1990s following the introduction of some of the nation’s
harshest sentencing laws. 7 Once a leader in the philosophy of rehabilitation, California also
passed legislation which expressly described punishment rather than rehabilitation as the
central aim of imprisonment. 8 Pelican Bay SHU, which opened in 1989, was one of the first
super-maximum security facilities specifically designed to be “non-programming”, that is,
constructed with no communal space for recreation, education or any other group activity. 9
California State Prison at Corcoran opened a year earlier in 1988, retrofitted to include
several SHU units, currently with a SHU population of over 1,300. Since then, California
has also built a SHU unit at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi (housing
some 840 prisoners in 2011) and a smaller unit at California State Prison, Sacramento. The
above are all facilities for males. A smaller SHU unit at Valley State Prison for Women was
recently transferred to the California Institute for Women. Although the percentage of
prisoners in California’s SHUs – just over 2% - remains not much greater than the reported
US average in “super-maximum” custody, the sheer numbers (more than 3,000) are higher
than in most states as is the length of time many prisoners have been housed in such units.
There are also thousands of prisoners held for shorter periods in isolation in administrative
segregation units throughout the state.
The California authorities have said that the SHUs were created in response to the serious
violence and threats to security largely caused by prison gangs. They have pointed to a
dramatic drop in the number of prison homicides after Pelican Bay and Corcoran SHUs were
opened. However, there is some dispute about how far the use of super-max units has led to
a fall in violence, in California or elsewhere. 10 One study has shown that, while violence in
California’s prisons reached a peak in the mid 1980s and declined thereafter, assault rates
started to rise again from the mid 1990s onwards, and that homicides remained higher than
the average in both Pelican Bay and Corcoran prisons. 11 In testimony at a hearing to a state
legislative committee in August 2011, CDCR spokesperson Scott Kernan said he believed the
violence would have been even higher had they not had the SHUs. However, many penal
experts have argued that, even if SHUs have some incapacitating effect, violence and
disruption can be better controlled by alternative measures, such as more effective prison
management, increased vigilance over contraband and weapons, and programs to divert
prisoners from gang-related activities.
Prison reform experts have also pointed out that, even where it is necessary to segregate
some prisoners, they should not be cut off from rehabilitation programs. Most prisoners,
even those in SHU confinement, will eventually be released. As described below, the
damaging effects of prolonged isolation and confinement to a cell may persist long after
prisoners are released back to the community. Prison reformers have argued that the high
cost of super-maximum confinement should be seen not only in financial terms but also in
terms of the risk to public safety of warehousing prisoners in stark conditions, with little
human interaction or access to meaningful programs.
In recent years, a number of US states have started to rethink their use of super-maximum
confinement. There has also been renewed recognition among penal experts and
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

6

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

administrators of the value of rehabilitation programs for prisoners and parolees in general.
In July 2005 in California, the former Department of Corrections “changed its name and
mission to address the rehabilitation and re-entry needs of incarcerated females and males”
and set up more programs aimed at reducing recidivism. While reforms to supermax housing
have often been driven by litigation and/or the need to cut costs, several states have reported
positive outcomes in terms of improved prisoner behaviour and reductions in violence after
they reduced their use of isolation and introduced better conditions for high risk prisoners. 12

CALIFORNIA SHU REFORM PROPOSALS AND REALIGNMENT
In California, CDCR has proposed reforms which it says will ultimately reduce the numbers in
the SHU by changing the criteria for assigning alleged gang members or associates to the
SHU and providing access to a step-down program. These proposals have been made in the
context of wider moves to reduce the state’s prison population. In August 2009, a threejudge panel ordered California to reduce overcrowding in its 33 prisons to 137.5% of its
design capacity, after finding that overcrowding was the “primary reason” the state had been
unable to deliver adequate medical and mental health care to its inmate population. The
order was upheld by the US Supreme Court in May 2011. 13 The state has since enacted
several bills to move low level offenders from state authority to the counties (local authorities)
under a process known as “realignment”. Under this process, less serious offenders will now
serve their sentences in local jails instead of state prisons and most people on parole will be
supervised at county rather than state level. By June 2012, the state prison population had
fallen to some 136,000 inmates - down from a peak of 173,000 in 2006 - with further
reductions anticipated for the future. 14
CDCR has said that “realignment” and the resulting reduction in overcrowding provided the
opportunity to revise its SHU policies, as well as to focus on providing more effective
rehabilitation programs for the inmate population in general. However, a number of
challenges remain. Although it has achieved significant reductions to its prison population,
California still has more prisoners than any other US state apart from Texas and more than
most other countries. 15 The department has already experienced substantial reductions in its
budget and staffing in recent years, despite reportedly having one of the lowest ratios of staff
to inmates of any state. While further cuts are intended to reflect reductions in the numbers
of prisoners, there is concern that they may not leave sufficient funds to provide adequate
programs for the remaining population. This concern was reflected in a February 2012 report
by the Legislative Analyst on the budgetary implications of realignment, which states that
CDCR “is not currently delivering rehabilitation programs for inmates and parolees as
effectively as possible”. 16 The report recommended that the Legislature not approve a
proposed further reduction of $101 million to rehabilitation programs until CDCR had
presented a plan on how it will implement effective programming under realignment.
As described in this report, Amnesty International does not believe that the current proposals
to reform SHU policies and provide a step-down program for prisoners in isolation go far
enough to bring the system into compliance with the USA’s obligations for the humane
treatment of prisoners. Amnesty International urges the legislature and CDCR to ensure that
sufficient resources are available to provide meaningful programs to all prisoners.

THE 2011 HUNGER STRIKE
“During the hunger strike he was taken to a Pelican Bay Administrative Segregation Unit
(ASU) with eleven other hunger strike leaders. He was in ASU with no warm clothes, bed
blankets, possessions (including writing materials). The air conditioning was turned right up
while he had just a t-shirt and trousers.”
Wife of gang validated SHU prisoner, one of the hunger striker leaders - this information was corroborated by one of the lead
hunger strikers with whom the Amnesty International delegation spoke

On 1 July 2011, prisoners in the SHU initiated a hunger strike to protest against their
conditions of confinement, bringing the issue into the public spotlight. 17 The strike spread to
prisons across the state, with more than 6,000 prisoners participating at one point. The
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

7

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

hunger strikers’ demands for improved conditions in the SHUs give an indication of just how
stark those conditions were: they included requests for access to personal items such as
being able to purchase wall calendars, “watch caps” (outdoor headwear when exercising in
bad weather), “sweat pants” (to keep warm) and at least some basic in-cell art materials.
They also asked to be able to have an annual photograph taken to send to their families (a
common practice allowed to most prisoners).
The strike ended on 20 July after CDCR agreed to make some modest changes immediately
(allowing prisoners to have “watch caps”, wall calendars and some other personal items), and
said it was undertaking a policy review to address the wider demands. One of the hunger
strikers’ “core demands” was that California comply with the US Commission on Safety and
Abuse in Americas Prisons 2006 recommendation to end long term solitary confinement and
make segregation a last resort. The strikers also called for prisoners who had served ten or
more years of indefinite SHU confinement to be released to the general prison population.
Other demands included better food (following repeated complaints that the food provided to
SHU prisoners was often cold and lacking nutrition) and requests that SHU inmates with
chronic health problems be moved to the New Folsom Medical SHU facility.
Following concern among prisoners about what they perceived as a lack of progress in
implementing changes, the hunger strike resumed briefly in late September 2011, but was
called off after meetings between prisoner representatives and CDCR and further assurances
that CDCR would institute changes. While no disciplinary action had been taken against the
first hunger strikers, the second hunger strike was treated by CDCR as a major rule violation
and some prisoners were punished by having their property and canteen privileges
confiscated. Fifteen of the strike leaders were reportedly moved to harsh conditions in
administrative segregation cells for a short period. Amnesty International wrote to CDCR at
the time, urging it to take action to end to the hunger strike by providing assurances on
improvements both to conditions and the procedures by which prisoners are assigned to the
SHU, rather than through disciplinary action resulting in still harsher conditions. 18

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

8

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

3. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
STANDARDS ON THE TREATMENT OF
PRISONERS AND USE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT
The USA has ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention against Torture and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both of which affirm the absolute
prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under
international law (articles 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and article 7 of the
ICCPR). Additionally, the ICCPR, in Article 10, requires that “all persons deprived of their
liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person”.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the body which monitors states’ compliance with their
obligations under the ICCPR, has stated that humane treatment of those deprived of their
liberty is a “fundamental and universally applicable rule” which imposes a positive obligation
on states towards those who are deprived of their liberty and which complements the
prohibition on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
International standards also provide that prisoners should not be subjected to any hardship or
constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty or restrictions that are
unavoidable in a closed environment. 19 States are obliged to provide prisoners with services
to meet their essential needs. These essential needs include adequate food and water,
washing and sanitary facilities, bedding and clothing, health care, access to natural light,
physical exercise, facilities to allow religious practice, and communication with others. In this
regard the Human Rights Committee has, in its General Comment on Article 10 and
frequently when commenting on states parties’ reports, cited the standards set out in the UN
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR); although not as such having
the legally binding force of a treaty, the SMR set out minimum standards which the UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture has said are “widely accepted as the universal norm for the
humane treatment of prisoners”. 20
Key standards for the treatment of prisoners are also set out in the Basic Principles for the
Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990, which reiterates that
all prisoners should be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as
human beings (Principle 1) and, among other things underlines that eexcept for those
limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall
retain all their human rights (Principle 5); specifically they state that all prisoners must have
the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the development of the
human personality (Principle 6), and they must have access to the health services available
in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation (Principle 9).
The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that the prohibition of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment under international law “relates not only to acts that cause
physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering” and has stated, specifically, that
prolonged solitary confinement may breach this prohibition . 21

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

9

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

The Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture (CAT) (the monitoring body
of the Convention against Torture) have criticized the harsh conditions of isolation in some
US “super-maximum” facilities as inconsistent with the USA’s obligations under the above
treaties. In 2006, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its concern that “conditions in
some maximum security prisons are incompatible with the obligation contained in article
10(1) to treat detained persons humanely”, citing, in particular, prolonged cellular
confinement, lack of adequate exercise and the “depersonalized environment” found in such
units. 22 The Committee also observed that such conditions “cannot be reconciled with the
requirement in Article 10 (3) that the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment the
essential aim of which shall be the reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners”. 23 The
CAT has urged the USA to review “the regime imposed on detainees in supermaximum
prisons, in particular the practice of prolonged isolation”, noting the effect of such treatment
on prisoners’ mental health. 24
International and regional human rights and other bodies have long expressed concern about
the use of solitary confinement in prisons because of the physical and mental harm and
suffering this may cause. The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, states under
Principle 7 that efforts to abolish solitary confinement as a punishment, or restrict its use,
should be undertaken and encouraged. The European Prison Rules, adopted by the Council
of Europe in 2006, state that solitary confinement should be imposed as a punishment “only
in exceptional cases and for a specified period of time that shall be as short as possible”. 25
The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement, adopted at the
International Psychological Trauma Symposium in December 2007, recommends clear limits
on the use of solitary confinement in the criminal justice system, given the serious
psychological and other consequences of such treatment. The jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also has in a
number of cases found solitary confinement to breach the prohibition of torture and other illtreatment and the obligation of humane treatment under the respective regional human rights
conventions. 26
In August 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment issued a detailed report reviewing the practice of solitary confinement,
which he defined as “the physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined to cells
for 22-24 hours a day”. 27 The report cited the findings of regional and international human
rights bodies and experts, and reviewed studies showing the severe negative effects isolation
can have on prisoners’ physical and mental health, even when imposed for limited periods.
The Special Rapporteur stressed that solitary confinement is a harsh measure which may
cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects, and contrary to one of the
essential aims of the penitentiary system, which is to rehabilitate offenders and facilitate
their reintegration into society. He noted that reduced social stimulus resulting from solitary
confinement, even over a short period, can have detrimental effects on an individual’s mental
health, and that this effect is exacerbated when individuals in solitary confinement are
supervised with almost no human interaction. He stated that, depending on the conditions,
length, effects and other circumstances, it can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. He urged states to abolish its use for juveniles and
persons with mental disabilities and for prolonged or indefinite periods. He stressed that it
should be used only exceptionally, as a last resort, and for as short a time as possible, with
procedural safeguards including that those subjected to it must have a genuine opportunity
to challenge the confinement and its underlying justification through a process of
administrative review and through the courts. Throughout there should also be a documented
system of regular monitoring and review of prisoners’ mental and physical condition by
qualified independent medical personnel accountable to an authority outside the prison
administration; any deterioration of the inmate's mental or physical condition should trigger a
presumption that the conditions of confinement are excessive and activate an immediate
review.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

10

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

4. US LAW AND STANDARDS
The US Supreme Court has not ruled that solitary confinement, even when imposed
indefinitely, is per se a violation of the US Constitution. However, there is a growing
consensus among the US courts that housing mentally ill prisoners in “super-maximum
security” isolation units is incompatible with the Eighth Amendment prohibition of “cruel
and unusual punishment” under the US Constitution. One of the landmark rulings was
Madrid v Gomez (1995), which ordered the removal of seriously mentally ill prisoners from
the Pelican Bay SHU on the ground that conditions put them at high risk of suffering “very
severe injury to their mental health”. 28 However, the court stopped short of ruling that
conditions for all prisoners at Pelican Bay SHU were unconstitutional (although, as discussed
below, there is some evidence that neither the Madrid court nor the designers of the unit had
envisaged such long term confinement there).
Judge Henderson, in delivering the Madrid ruling, noted that, “the record demonstrates that
the conditions of extreme social isolation and reduced environmental stimulation found in the
Pelican Bay SHU will likely inflict some degree of psychological trauma upon most inmates
confined there for more than brief periods”. However, he held that, “while the conditions in
the SHU may press the outer bounds of what most humans can psychologically tolerate, the
record does not satisfactorily demonstrate that there is a sufficiently high risk to all inmates
of incurring a serious mental illness from exposure to conditions in the SHU to find that the
conditions constitute per se deprivation of a basic necessity of life”. 29
The court noted in its ruling that the California authorities had a legitimate penological
interest in restricting the social activity of certain inmates. While Judge Henderson observed
that some aspects of the SHU – such as windowless cells, lack of any view or equipment in
the exercise yards – appeared to have tenuous links with what was necessary on security
grounds, the court deferred to the considerable discretion afforded states by the federal
courts to determine the specific conditions of confinement. Thus, the ruling left unchanged
the physical conditions in the SHU.
While the impact of many years of indefinite SHU confinement in the conditions at Pelican
Bay might persuade a court today to reach a different decision, the ruling reflects the very
high threshold set by the US courts in deciding claims of cruel prison conditions. The US
Supreme Court has held that for conditions to amount to “cruel and unusual punishment”
they must be so severe as to deprive the inmate of a “basic necessity of life”. 30 This has
been interpreted to include the physical requirements of food, clothing, shelter, medical care
and personal safety. 31 However, the courts have been less willing to consider psychological
pain or deterioration in a prisoner’s mental state as sufficient to judge conditions
unconstitutional, except in very severe cases. 32
Since Madrid, other US courts have held that housing seriously mentally ill prisoners in
“supermax” conditions is unconstitutional. However, Amnesty International believes that
insufficient attention has been paid by the US courts – or by legislators and prison
administrators – to the mental pain and suffering endured by all prisoners, whether or not
they are assessed as suffering from serious mental illness, who are subjected to prolonged
isolation and environmental and other deprivations.
The USA has sought to limit the application of international human rights law in its conduct
by entering reservations to article 7 of the ICCPR and article 16 of the Convention against
Torture as a condition of ratifying the treaties. The reservations state that the US considers
itself bound by the articles only to the extent that “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

11

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

punishment” means the “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” prohibited under the
US Constitution. In its initial report to the Human Rights Committee on its obligations under
the ICCPR, the US administration, then under President Bill Clinton, explained its
reservations by stating that certain US practices had withstood judicial review in the US
courts under constitutional provisions which were arguably narrower than the scope of Article
7. The report cited, as an example, prolonged judicial proceedings in cases involving capital
punishment, which the Committee had suggested could constitute cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment in contravention of Article 7, and it noted that “the
Committee has also indicated that the prohibition may extend to other practices as corporal
punishment and solitary confinement.” 33
Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the USA to withdraw its reservations as
defeating the object and purpose of the treaties in question and therefore incompatible with
international law. 34 The Human Rights Committee has also noted with concern the restrictive
interpretation made by the US of its obligations under the Covenant, as has the Committee
against Torture. 35 In any event, the USA has made no similar reservation to Article 10 of the
ICCPR which requires that all prisoners must be treated humanely, without exception. Given
the clear consensus among international human rights bodies and experts that prolonged or
indefinite solitary confinement is inhumane treatment, Amnesty International is concerned
that US courts and governments continue to accept such practice.
While the US courts have taken a relatively narrow view of what are unconstitutional prison
conditions – largely deferring to prison administrations on measures deemed necessary on
security grounds – other US bodies have been more robust in expressing concern about the
use of solitary confinement.
In its 2006 report Confronting Confinement, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons (a broad based panel co-chaired by a former US Attorney General and a
former Chief Judge) called for an end to conditions of isolation in US prisons. 36 The report
acknowledged that “Separating dangerous or vulnerable individuals from the general prison
population is part of running a safe correctional facility”. However, it found that in some
systems, the “drive for safety, coupled with public demand for tough punishment has had
perverse effects”, with prisoners who were justifiably separated from the general population
locked in cells with little opportunity to be productive or to prepare for release and others
who were not a serious threat confined under the same conditions. The report noted that in
some places “the environment in segregation is so severe that people end up completely
isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions”. 37
The Commission recommended making segregation a last resort, for as brief a period as
possible, with tighter admissions criteria and segregated prisoners given an opportunity to
engage in productive activities. Noting higher recidivism rates among prisoners released
directly from segregation, the Commission also recommended that inmates should spend
time in a normal prison setting before being released to the community. The Commission
called on US jurisdictions to “End conditions of isolation” and “Ensure that segregated
prisoners have regular and meaningful human contact and are free from extreme physical
conditions that cause lasting harm”, citing as examples systems where prisoners are held in
cells with few possessions and no natural light or view outside the cell and no contact with
other prisoners or meaningful contact with staff. 38
In 2010, the American Bar Association (ABA) promulgated standards on the treatment of
prisoners which included standards on segregation. 39 These state that segregated housing
“should be for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions practicable and
consistent with the rationale for placement and with the progress achieved by the prisoner”
(Standard 23-2.6). The standards state that segregation for more than one year should be
imposed only if the prisoner poses a “continuing serious threat” (23-2.7); that “Conditions
of extreme isolation should not be allowed regardless of the reasons for a prisoner’s
separation from the general population” (23-3.8 (b)); and that all prisoners in segregated
housing should be provided with “meaningful forms of mental, physical and social
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

12

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

stimulation”, including, where possible, more out-of-cell time and opportunities to exercise in
the presence of other prisoners (23-3.8 (c)). The standards also recommend a number of
procedural protections for prisoners placed in segregated housing, including a hearing at
which the prisoner has a reasonable opportunity to present witnesses and information and to
participate in the proceedings, with regular, meaningful review (23-2.9).

A SHU inmate peers out of his cell. Image courtesy of Rina Palta

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

13

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

5. CONDITIONS IN PELICAN BAY SHU
“You lay there in your concrete tomb trying to
block out the cold especially in the winter when
this place is like a morgue. The wall I lay next to is
an exterior wall… it’s like sleeping next to a
block of ice… sometimes the floor is warmer and
there I will sleep”.
Letter written by an inmate who has been held in the Pelican Bay SHU for 16 years as a gang associate

Picture of a typical SHU cell taken from the corridor. Image copyright credit - Private

The Pelican Bay SHU is a separate facility within Pelican Bay State Prison maximum security
complex in Crescent City, situated in the far north of California close to the border with
Oregon. At the time of Amnesty International’s visit to the prison in November 2011, around
1,100 prisoners were held in the SHU, slightly above the official capacity of 1056.
According to CDCR, 98% of prisoners in PBSP SHU are validated gang members serving
indeterminate SHU terms. Figures released by CDCR in 2011 revealed that more than 500
prisoners had spent over ten years in Pelican Bay SHU; of this number, 78 had spent 20 or
more years in the SHU. Many prisoners have been there since the prison opened in 1989,
held in conditions of severe isolation. Amnesty International considers that the design and
operating procedures in the SHU fall short of international standards for humane treatment.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

14

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Modelled on the Special Management Unit in Arizona, Pelican Bay SHU is designed to
minimize human contact and reduce visual stimulation. 40 It consists of a low level concrete
structure divided into cell blocks. The cell blocks themselves are divided into “pods”, each
containing eight cells arranged on two tiers. The cells have no windows and face a blank wall
so that prisoners have no view and cannot see each other. Each pod is self-contained with an
exercise pen at one end and a shower at the other so that, apart from visits or occasional trips
to the law library or for medical treatment, prisoners need never leave the confines of the
pod.
A central control area overlooks each cell-block, with TV screens giving a view into the pods.
In general, correctional staff enter the pods only when delivering food to prisoners through
slots in the cell doors, or when conducting cell searches. All doors are operated electronically
and individually, so that a prisoner can be let out of his cell to go the exercise pen or shower
cell without having contact with a guard or another prisoner. Prisoners are shackled with
handcuffs and ankle chains whenever they are escorted outside the pod. Apart from visits by
a chaplain, people outside the prison system rarely have access to the housing pods. Amnesty
International’s delegates entered a pod in an area of D wing known as the “short corridor”
where alleged gang leaders are held. One prisoner, who had been in the SHU for 22 years,
told a delegate that they were the first outsiders he had seen in the cell block for years.

CONDITIONS INSIDE THE CELLS
Prisoners are confined to their cells for at least 22 and a half hours a day. The concrete cells
measure approximately 80 square feet and are equipped with two built-in cement bunks
against the back wall, a combined toilet and sink unit, a concrete slab which serves as a
desk, a fixed stool and small shelf for a TV. Although the bunks allow for double occupancy,
albeit in a very confined space, 90% of prisoners currently in Pelican Bay SHU are singlecelled and have no physical contact with any other inmate. Prisoners have no work,
vocational training, or recreational or group activities of any kind. All meals are taken in the
cells, delivered through a slot in the door. The table, toilet and sink unit are positioned close
to each other on one side of the cell. As Amnesty International has observed elsewhere,
there is a concern about the possible health risks from spending so much time in a confined
space, and eating all meals in close proximity to the open toilet. 41
The 80 square feet cell size just meets the standard set by the American Correctional
Association (ACA) for prisoners who spend more than 10 hours a day confined to a single
cell. While the standard is not binding, it provides a nationally recognized benchmark for best
practice. 42 However, a cell sized 80 square feet falls short of this standard if it
accommodates two prisoners. While most prisoners in Pelican Bay SHU are not currently
double-celled, Amnesty is concerned that a purpose built, relatively modern facility has been
designed to accommodate two prisoners in a space recommended for single occupancy.
Although having a suitable cell-mate alleviates some of the effects of isolation, confining
prisoners together in a small space for such prolonged periods may cause additional
stresses. 43
The cell doors are constructed of heavy gauge perforated metal which, in the words of the
federal judge in the Madrid ruling, “significantly blocks vision and light”. 44 The only natural
light source in each pod comes from a skylight in the ceiling of the central corridor, above
and beyond the cell tiers. The cells are primarily lit with a fluorescent light which can be
operated by the inmate, with lights in the corridor which stay on at all times but are
reportedly dimmed at night. Amnesty International’s delegates stood inside a vacant cell and
noted that, when the cell light was turned off and the door closed, little natural light entered
the cell which was very gloomy, despite it being a bright day. (While it was just possible to
read without artificial light, it would be difficult to do this for any length of time or on a dull
day.)
The lack of natural light in the housing cells contravenes the UN Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) which state that “In all places where prisoners are
required to live or work, a) windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or
15
Index: AMR 51/060/2012
Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air
whether or not there is artificial ventilation” (Rule 11). 45 The UN Special Rapporteur on
Torture has said that the provisions in the SMR relating to light and air are “of critical
importance to the adequate treatment of detainees in solitary confinement.” 46
The ACA standards also require that “all inmates’ rooms/cells provide access to natural light”
and that “segregation housing units provide living standards that approximate those of the
general population” in prison. 47

A cell inside Pelican Bay SHU. Image courtesy of Rina Palta

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

16

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

The honeycombed-shaped perforations in the cell doors are designed to be small enough to
prevent objects from being thrown through them, while allowing surveillance of the cell
interior (CCTV cameras are positioned along the corridor for this purpose). However, it is
difficult to focus when looking through the doors at close range. Amnesty International’s
delegates spoke to several prisoners at the cell door and found their vision became strained
after just a few minutes of peering through the perforations in the thick steel. The doors thus
have the dual effect of both hampering vision at close range (thereby hindering
communication with anyone at the cell door), while allowing a full view into the cell from a
distance. The latter means that prisoners are potentially on view at all times even when using
the toilet which is situated at the front of the cell, and thus they have no privacy. The
structure of the cell doors is just one example in the design of the SHU where, in Amnesty
International’s view, security considerations have taken precedence over the obligation to
provide a humane environment.
While the perforated doors allow entrance of some fresh air, prisoners have complained of
cells becoming very cold in winter, particularly at night, and of not being provided with
adequate clothing. The cold temperature is reportedly exacerbated by failure to insulate
outside walls at the back of some cells, where the concrete bunks are situated. There are also
reports that the ventilation system is inadequate, consisting of recycled air, releasing dust
and particles, leading to respiratory problems. 48 While Amnesty International was unable to
assess this through its visit, it believes that these complaints should be addressed. CDCR
should ensure that cells are sufficiently insulated from cold, are maintained at adequate
temperatures and with sufficient ventilation. All prisoners without exception should be
provided with adequate clothing, blankets and headwear.

Picture of a sink and tv inside a SHU cell. Image copyright credit - Private

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

17

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

LEXAN CELLS
“He tells me the hardest thing to bear is the lack of human contact. In the SHU, you can't
touch people; you lack sunlight, even noise. It is total sensory deprivation”.
Wife of a gang validated prisoner who was one of the lead hunger strikers

In the cell block Amnesty International visited, the doors of the eight cells in one pod (F pod)
were covered with sheets of unbreakable transparent plastic (Lexan). The plastic sheets are
reportedly installed to prevent prisoners thrusting sharp objects or spitting or throwing faeces
through the perforations in the cell doors. All of the cells were occupied at the time of the
visit (one prisoner per cell) and the organization was told they would usually remain in the
Lexan cells “for the duration” of their time in the SHU. Amnesty International is concerned
that the Lexan covered cells further isolate prisoners and may worsen the air quality inside
the cells by blocking air circulation through the perforated doors. According to testimony
about the effect of Lexan cells elsewhere, they allow heat and humidity to build up within the
cell during warm weather and muffle sound so that it is more difficult to communicate with
someone behind Lexan doors. 49
Following its visit Amnesty International sought information from CDCR on the number of
prisoners held in Lexan-covered cells at Pelican Bay SHU and the reasons why prisoners were
held in such cells. This information had not been provided at the time of writing. However,
each cell block in the SHU is reported to have one pod of Lexan covered cells. According to a
prison mental health expert, most throwing of bodily wastes in prison (also known informally
as “gassing”) occurs in solitary confinement/isolation units, and, along with non-suicidal selfharm and smearing excrement on cell walls, is usually a symptom of mental health or
behavioural problems stemming from, or exacerbated by, the harsh, isolative conditions of
confinement. 50 One high ranking official is reported as saying that he had never heard of
“gassing” before the advent of the SHU, but once Pelican Bay SHU opened, gassing became
a frequent occurrence. 51 Amnesty International appreciates that gassing is a particularly
unpleasant experience for officers and may also, in some instance, carry a risk of harm.
However, the organization is concerned that prisoners who engaged in disturbed behaviour
such as spitting or throwing excrement should be held in Lexan cells instead of receiving
treatment for their behaviour in a more therapeutic environment.

EXERCISE
“The roof is a wire mesh with a plexi –glass covering; if you look up your view is distorted by
the mesh. You do not get any direct sunlight and you are under surveillance by the video
camera the whole time”
Description of a SHU exercise yard in a letter written by an inmate who has been held in the SHU at Pelican Bay for 16 years

SHU Prisoners are allowed to exercise for an hour and a half a day, alone (or with a cell-mate
in the few cases where they have one) in a bare, concrete yard at the end of each pod. The
narrow yard has 20 foot high walls, giving no view of the outside and the top is covered with
a partially meshed plastic roof. Following the May 2011 hunger strike, CDCR agreed to allow
prisoners to have a ball during exercise and was considering the installation of exercise
equipment such as a “chin-up” bar. No exercise equipment had been installed in the yards
at Pelican Bay or Corcoran SHU at the time of Amnesty International’s visit, although the
new step-down program states that “isometric exercise equipment” may be allowed during
recreation as “deemed appropriate”. 52 No seating was provided in the exercise area, which is
of concern given that many of the prisoners are elderly and some suffer from joint problems.
It is reported that some prisoners do not always take their yard time because of the lack of
facilities, or yard time is cancelled due to staff shortages or other disruptions; the yards also
reportedly get flooded at times when the weather is wet (Crescent City has one of the wettest
climates in California).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

18

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

“He has constructed this routine as he doesn’t want to have time to think about where he
is…surprisingly he says that he feels ‘time goes by too fast…I get up, I exercise, I clean my
cell, I draw, I read, I write letters and then I go to sleep’”.
Sister of prisoner issued with an indeterminate SHU sentence at Pelican Bay and held in solitary confinement for more than 21
years

International standards require that prisoners not engaged in outdoor work should have at
least an hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily (SMR 21 (1)). The SMR further
provide that “Young prisoners and others of suitable age and physique shall receive physical
and recreational training during the period of exercise” and that, to this end, “space,
installations and equipment should be provided” (SMR 21 (2). While the time allowed in the
yard meets the above minimum standard, if adhered to daily, Amnesty International does not
believe that conditions in the exercise yards at Pelican Bay are adequate to qualify as
“suitable outdoor exercise”, particularly for prisoners otherwise confined to cells for long
periods. As noted by the federal judge in the Madrid v Gomez ruling, “given their cell-like
design and physical attachment to the pod itself, the pens are more suggestive of satellite
cells than areas for exercise or recreation”. 53 The need for adequate exercise is particularly
important where prisoners are cut off from normal activities and spend long periods in their
cells, and in view of the detrimental effects on health of lack of exercise.
One of the requests made by the hunger strikers across the state SHUs was that prisoners be
provided with “watch” caps to wear during exercise. A CDCR memorandum to wardens during
the hunger strike stated that “In some instances inmates are not being provided with the
appropriate attire for inclement weather conditions when being released to the yard in the
SHUs.” The memorandum reminded staff to provide suitable clothing, noting that several
notices about this had been issued since 2005. 54 During its visit to Corcoran SHU, one
prisoner told Amnesty International that he and others were forced to improvise, cutting up Tshirts to make caps in cold weather. All prisoners now reportedly have watch caps and can
purchase sweat pants and thermals.

CONDITIONS UNNECESSARILY AND DISPROPORTIONATELY HARSH
“I understand that I broke the law, and I have lost liberties because of that. But no one, no
matter what they’ve done, should be denied fundamental human rights. Our constitution
protects everyone living under it; fundamental rights must not be left at the prison door”
Letter written by gang validated inmate held in Pelican Bay SHU for 16 years having been imprisoned under the California “three
strikes” law

As with a number of US supermax facilities built in the late 1980s and 1990s, Pelican Bay
SHU was designed by architects working in close collaboration with correctional staff. While
consultation with correctional staff is an appropriate part of the process, in practice this has
sometimes resulted in an emphasis on security at the expense of the welfare of prisoners. 55
This is illustrated in Pelican Bay SHU by the design of the cells, the minimal provision for
exercise and lack of any space for group activity or out of cell programs. The original design
had no law library, despite prisoner access to a law library or other legal services provision
being mandatory under the constitution. Following the Madrid v Gomez lawsuit, a law library
was constructed out of one of the visiting areas.
According to one recent study, two high level correctional administrators who were involved
with the building and financing of Pelican Bay in the 1980s had supported the construction
of SHU housing to isolate gang members and limit violence, but said that the isolation was
never intended to be indefinite but rather limited to around 18 months – only a fraction of
the time many prisoners have now spent there. 56
The conditions and regime of the Pelican Bay SHU are inconsistent with international norms
which provide that imprisonment should not impose hardship beyond that inherent in the
deprivation of liberty and maintenance of order. The Human Rights Committee, in its
General Comment on Article 10 of the ICCPR emphasizes that persons deprived of their
liberty may not be “…subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from
19
Index: AMR 51/060/2012
Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

the deprivation of liberty; respect for the dignity of such persons must be guaranteed under
the same conditions as for that of free persons…”. (General Comment 21)
The SMR state, as a guiding principle that:
Imprisonment and other measures which result in cutting off an offender from the outside
world are afflictive by the very fact of taking from the person the right of self-determination
by depriving him of his liberty. Therefore the prison system shall not, except as incidental to
justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in
such a situation. (Article 57)
Amnesty International considers that the restrictive conditions built into the design of the
Pelican Bay SHU, and the lack of human interaction in an already isolated environment, are
gratuitously harsh, going beyond what is necessary for security purposes. There is no
justifiable penological reason for depriving prisoners even in a segregated environment of
natural light, adequate exercise or meaningful human contact. Access to natural light and
exercise are basic needs, essential for physical and mental health. As described below, many
prisoners in the SHU are reported to suffer from chronic health problems due to their
conditions of confinement.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

20

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

6. CONDITIONS IN CORCORAN SHU
California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR) has an even larger SHU population than Pelican
Bay SHU. The prison houses prisoners at various security levels and was retrofitted soon
after it opened in 1988 to include two SHU facilities. There were 1,350 prisoners in the
SHU in November 2011, around half of whom were validated gang members or associates,
with the other half serving fixed SHU terms for serious disciplinary infractions.
The cells in the SHU are similar to standard general population maximum security cells. They
are arranged on two tiers overlooking a central space and are equipped with two bunks, a
built-in toilet and sink unit, desk and space for a TV. Unlike Pelican Bay, each cell has a
narrow window to the outside. The lights in the cells are controlled by guards and, although
they are dimmed at night, some light is on 24 hours a day. The cell doors in the unit
Amnesty International visited were constructed of perforated metal of a different design to
those in Pelican Bay, the perforations being finer and easier to see through without distortion
when talking to someone at the cell door. Some cells have solid metal doors – one prisoner
said these cells “can get very hot in summer, especially with two guys”. The cells measure
80 square feet, and about half have two prisoners sharing, meaning the cell space falls below
ACA standards for inmates confined to cells for 10 hours or more a day; despite the cramped
space, some prisoners say they prefer to share a cell to relieve the isolation.
Prisoners in Corcoran SHU are confined to cells for 22 and a half hours a day and are subject
to the same restrictions as in the Pelican Bay and other SHU facilities, with very limited
possessions and amenities. One difference is that outdoor exercise takes place in individual
cages. The yards have a view of other buildings within the prison confines and it is possible
to communicate with prisoners in adjacent cages. However, the yards are too small to throw
a ball and, at the time of Amnesty International’s visit, had no equipment, although provision
of some exercise equipment has been proposed as part of the “step-down” program. Three of
the five prisoners the delegates interviewed said they had less than 10 hours a week of
exercise: one said his building got 7 hours and not every day; another said he got around 7-9
hours a week but “sometimes we don't get it”; and a third said he did not always go to the
yard from choice as there was no equipment and nothing to do. Amnesty International
recommends that for prisoners confined to cells for prolonged periods the exercise yards be
made larger to enable more effective exercise and prisoners be encouraged to take outdoor
exercise daily.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

21

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

7. CONTACT WITH THE OUTSIDE
WORLD
“Since 2001 I’ve been trying to get a hardship
transfer…due to my parents’ health and age they
can no longer travel the long distance, 15-18
hours to Pelican Bay. I was told I couldn’t get a
transfer but, that they might consider my transfer
if I would debrief. In November 2009 my mom
passed away, I never got to see her again, the last
time I talked to her was in 1999.”
Letter written to Amnesty International by a prisoner who has spent more than 14 years in Pelican Bay SHU as an alleged gang
associate

Prisoners in the SHU may correspond with their attorneys, families, friends and outside
organizations, subject to certain restrictions. However, all visits, both social and legal, are
non-contact, taking place behind a glass screen with communication through telephones in
the visitation booths. In practice, many prisoners in Pelican Bay have few or no visits. This is
largely due to the remote location of the prison and its distance from Los Angeles and
Southern California where most prisoners, many of Hispanic origin, come from.
Prisoners have also expressed concern that social visits are allowed only at week-ends for a
maximum of 1.5 to 2 hours on each day, which is said to be unduly restrictive, given the
distance that relatives have to travel. Many other states and the federal system allow for
longer visitation hours on more days of the week. A memorandum from CDCR in July 2011
stated that the department was unable to extend visiting periods in prisons due to budget
constraints, but would endeavour to allow more than 2 hours if no-one was waiting for the
next slot. While this may increase contact for some prisoners, Amnesty International has
received letters from prisoners describing how they have not received visits in years, due to
the expense and difficulty of relatives (including elderly parents) being able to travel to the
prison. Some prisoners have spent more than a decade in the SHU without visits from their
family.
“Every aspect of PBSP-SHU is oppressive/punitive – in an ongoing effort to break men down
to debrief…e.g. zero amount of human contact – no phone calls – rare to zero visits with
family or friends [visits are behind glass and over a phone]”.
Letter sent to Amnesty International from prisoner held in Pelican Bay SHU

California SHU inmates are also denied regular telephone calls with their families,
exacerbating their isolation from the outside world. Only prisoners undergoing “debriefing”
are allowed to call their relatives at regular intervals; other SHU prisoners are only allowed a
telephone call in an emergency, such as the death of a close relative. This is believed to be
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

22

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

more restrictive than in most other US correctional systems, including the federal system
where even at the most restrictive custody level in the high security unit at ADX-Florence
prisoners are allowed two non-legal telephone calls a month. One of the demands of the
hunger strikers was for increased family contact, including one collect call a week home as
well allowing extra time for visits and adding one extra visiting day a week.
The new proposals by CDCR to allow prisoners to earn more privileges through a four-year
step-down program, includes no change to the bar on phone calls for the first year. The
proposals would allow prisoners who are “disciplinary free” (i.e. have not committed any rule
violations) one single telephone call at the end of the first year and two at the end of the
second year. Amnesty International considers that this remains too restrictive and that denial
of regular phone contact, particularly when prisoners are incarcerated a long way from home
and have few or no visits, is unnecessarily harsh, and falls short of international human rights
standards.
International standards recognize the importance of prisoners maintaining family ties both for
their wellbeing and to promote rehabilitation. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles) states that a
prisoner “shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in particular, members
of his family and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world,
subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions” and that “If a detained or imprisoned
person so requests, he shall if possible be kept in a place of detention or imprisonment
reasonably near his usual place of residence” . 57 It is generally recognized that prisoners do
better on release if they have good family and other outside support. Article 79 of the SMR
states that “Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance and improvement of such
relations between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both”.
Article 80 states: “From the beginning of a prisoner’s sentence consideration shall be given
to his future after release and he shall be encouraged and assisted to maintain or establish
relations with persons or agencies outside the institution as may promote the best interests of
his family and his own social rehabilitation”.
As noted below, a significant proportion of SHU inmates will eventually be released from
prison. Strong family relations may also in some cases encourage prisoners to dissociate
themselves from prison gangs. Two prisoners interviewed by Amnesty International who were
in the gang “debriefing” process said that family ties, including marriage in one case, had
been influential in their decision to renounce their gang membership.
Amnesty International has received several letters from prisoners who had spent many years
in the SHU, stating that the authorities have told them they would have to debrief if they
wanted better contact with their families, including being moved to a prison closer to home.
One prisoner of Mexican origin wrote in December 2011 that he had not had visits from his
elderly parents since he was sent to Pelican Bay SHU in 1999 as they were too frail to travel
the distance. He had applied for several years on hardship grounds for a transfer to a prison
further south and nearer to his home, providing medical evidence of his parents’ infirmities,
but was told by the classification committee that “they might consider my transfer if I would
debrief”. He wrote, “in November 2009 my mom passed away, I never got to see her again;
the last time I talked to her was in 1999”. He alleged that correctional officers used his
mother’s death to pressure him again to debrief, telling him his 89 year old father needed
him but he would not see him again if he stayed in the Pelican Bay SHU.
Another prisoner, who last had a visit from his disabled mother in 1992, said he had received
only two 10-minute phone calls with her in the following years, one when his sister died in
1998 and one when his grandmother died in 2000. He added that “PBSP staff told me many
times that if I wanted to be transferred closer to my mom so I could see her, all I had to do
was debrief. She has since passed away”.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

23

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

“I was born and raised in San Diego and most of my family live there or farther away from
Pelican Bay – literally 1000 miles away. During these 15 long years, my family (sister) has
only been able to make one trip up here. I was allowed one 80 minute visit behind thick
glass. There is absolutely no physical contact allowed with anyone. Imagine 10, 20, 30 years
without even a hug or touch to your loved ones’ hands, OR hearing your mothers or child’s
voice on the phone”.
Letter from a prisoner who has been held in the Pelican Bay SHU for 15 years

A prisoner wrote that he was transferred from Corcoran SHU to a high security medical unit
at New Folsom Prison where he was told he could have a phone call with his family because
of his serious medical condition; however, he alleged that, when the time came – and his
father was waiting for the call – the captain who had allowed the phone call told him he had
to “do something first” and a guard held a piece of paper up to his cell window with the word
“debrief” written on it. He said that, when he declined to debrief, he never got to make the
call.
Amnesty International recognizes that the authorities have a legitimate interest in
encouraging prisoners to break ties to prison gangs. However, the right of prisoners to
humane treatment, or transfers or phone calls that prisoners would otherwise be eligible for
on compassionate grounds, should not be made conditional on prisoners debriefing.
Moreover, the UN Body of Principles explicitly prohibits “taking undue advantage of the
situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to … testify
against a third person” (Principle 21).
Amnesty International urges the authorities to take steps to ensure that prisoners in Pelican
Bay and other SHU facilities have better opportunities for contact with their families. This
should include expanding visitation times, where possible. In line with practice in other
states and the federal system, Amnesty International urges the authorities to allow all
prisoners who are not under specific sanction for serious rule violations while in the SHU to
have phone calls with their families at regular intervals. The authorities should also consider
transferring prisoners who have spent several years in Pelican Bay SHU to prisons nearer to
home.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

24

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

8. IN-CELL PROGRAMMING
AND PRIVILEGES
“With no goals to strive for, or hope for release
out of isolation, I can sum up our existence in the
SHU with two words, ‘soul-crushing’”.
Gang validated inmate currently held in Pelican Bay SHU on an indeterminate placement

SHU prisoners may purchase prison-issue TVs or radios and basic “canteen” items (such as
hygiene products and certain snack foods) from the prison commissary. Personal possessions
and materials for in cell activities are extremely limited. Apart from photographs, in-cell
possessions until recently were limited to a combination of up to five books, magazines or
newspapers, a pen and some stationery sheets. SHU inmates are allowed to receive one
personal package a year of up to 30 pounds of authorized items (including clothing), a
quarter of the amount allowed annually to prisoners in the general prison population.
“I would grow my own hair so I could cut it to use as a paint brush and would invent my own
colours…I’d use mustard, kool-aid and coffee. I would even rub the dye from images in paper
magazines to make my own colours”.
Now released prisoner who spent nearly seven years in solitary confinement at Pelican Bay SHU

Since the 2011 hunger strikes, and in line with the prisoners’ modest requests for some
additional in-cell materials, CDCR has allowed SHU prisoners wall calendars and those who
have been “disciplinary free” (i.e. not under sanction for rule violations) for one year to
purchase coloured chalk, pen fillers and drawing paper. Prisoners can also earn the right to
have an annual photograph taken to send to their families. As noted above, they are also
allowed to purchase “sweat pants” and “watch caps”, items denied to SHU prisoners before
the hunger strike.
Although some SHU prisoners are able to undertake basic educational programs such as
high-school level General Educational Development (GED), they cannot attend classes and
access is reportedly limited due to a shortage of teaching staff available to deliver and
monitor individual in-cell assignments. SHU inmates are also allowed to take college
correspondence courses, which were previously withdrawn but reinstated in early 2011.
However, access is also limited in practice as many prisoners do not have the necessary
standard of literacy or cannot afford to buy books. A scheme to provide a library at Pelican
Bay was in jeopardy as one of the outside colleges involved had its funding cut. While CDCR
said it had reinstated “proctors” to monitor exams and allow prisoners to get credit for them,
access is reported to be “inconsistent”. 58
Amnesty International’s delegates were told that only 37 prisoners out of over 1,000
prisoners in PB SHU were enrolled in a GED program at the time of their visit in November
2011, with 22 enrolled in college correspondence courses. A slightly higher number were
enrolled in courses in Corcoran, with 65 prisoners in one unit of the SHU reported to be
undertaking either GED or college correspondence courses at the time of Amnesty
International’s visit. While some programming is provided via close circuit TV channels, the
organization was told that education programs via TV are supplementary and not part of the
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

25

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

core GED coursework.

The wife of an inmate currently held in the Pelican Bay SHU told Amnesty International that her husband would
regularly read the dictionary in order to keep his mind active. For a while he also cared for a frog which he had
found in the exercise yard. He would collect worms and bugs to feed the frog. She explained that this
interaction was particularly therapeutic for him having being held in solitary confinement without human
contact for 16 years. When the hunger strikes began, as punishment for his participation, the guards took the
frog away
“If you don’t have someone to send you money ($55 per month you are in a constant state of
hunger as the food is barely adequate”.
Mother of a 37 year old gang-validated inmate at Pelican Bay who has been held in solitary confinement for more than 12 years

Amnesty International considers that the limited in-cell activity available to SHU inmates and
access to TV or radio does not compensate for the lack of human interaction, particularly
when applied over months and years.
CDCR has proposed that the first two phases of the new “step-down program” include “incell studies designed to enhance life skills” such as anger management and “cognitive skill
based programming”. However, it is hard to envisage how prisoners can be expected to have
any meaningful opportunity to develop skills such as anger management during those phases
of the step down program when they remain confined to isolated cells, as proposed (see
below).
The UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners includes the provision that “All
prisoners have the right to take part in cultural activities aimed at the full development of the
human personality” (Principle 6). The SMR emphasize that prisoners should be given access
to a range of social, educational and other programs to prepare for their eventual return to
society. Failure to provide such programs to prisoners in long-term segregation is contrary to
the USA’s obligation under Article 10 (3) of the ICCPR which states that rehabilitation
should be an essential aim of any penitentiary system. In its General Comment on Article
10, the Human Rights Committee observed that “No penitentiary system should be only
retributory; it should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the
prisoner”. 59
While Amnesty International was unable to obtain an age breakdown of SHU prisoners,
several of the prisoners it interviewed were in their late teens or early 20s when they entered
the SHU and had been in the SHU for a decade or more without access to meaningful
rehabilitation programs. The organization was told that a lot of prisoners entering SHU
housing are in the 18-25 age range. It is generally recognized that young people in particular
can be impulsive, impressionable and susceptible to change. While many are serving long
prison sentences, most will eventually be released. It is important, both for their life chances
and the safety of the wider community, to ensure that they have access to programs to
enhance their chances of rehabilitation.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

26

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

9. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL
EFFECTS OF CONFINEMENT:
MADRID V GOMEZ AND BEYOND
“The biggest challenge of being held in the SHU is
to keep you own head when people around you
start to lose it and you can’t do anything…it is
truly a hellish place to be. The SHU breaks men
and it is a constant challenge to keep yourself
from being broken”.
Pelican Bay SHU inmate who has been held in solitary confinement for ten years

As noted above, in 1995 the US federal court in Madrid v Gomez ordered the removal of
prisoners from Pelican Bay SHU who were seriously mentally ill or at risk of serious mental
illness. Those who met the criteria for exclusion included prisoners who already had a history
of serious mental illness or had become severely psychotic while in the SHU. However, there
is a significant body of evidence, in the USA and elsewhere, that solitary confinement and
social isolation in conditions of reduced environmental stimulation can have serious
detrimental psychological consequences, even in prisoners without pre-existing illness. 60
At the time of the Madrid ruling, Pelican Bay had been open for less than six years and most
of the prisoners studied in connection with the lawsuit had been housed in the SHU for three
years or less. In regard to those prisoners who had not demonstrated they had suffered
sufficient harm for their treatment to be unconstitutional, the judge stated, “We cannot begin
to speculate on the impact that Pelican Bay SHU conditions may have on inmates confined
in the SHU for periods of 10 or 20 years or more”. 61 As shown by figures provided by CDCR
at the time of the hunger strike in 2011, hundreds of prisoners have now spent ten or more
years in Pelican Bay SHU, including many who have been there since it opened in 1989. The
physical conditions of their confinement have remained unchanged since Madrid.
The Madrid ruling cited a review conducted by Dr Stuart Grassian of 50 prisoners in Pelican
Bay SHU who had already been identified as experiencing psychiatric problems. 62 Dr
Grassian found that most had suffered significant deterioration since they had been in the
SHU, becoming actively psychotic and/or suicidal or developing serious psychopathological
reactions to the SHU which included perceptual disturbances, intrusive thoughts, severe
paranoia and panic disorder. These prisoners fell among the categories of prisoners who the
court ruled should be excluded per se from the SHU.
However, a representative sample of 100 randomly selected Pelican Bay SHU prisoners
studied by Professor Craig Haney during the same period found that, while a sizable minority
showed signs of more extreme forms of mental illness, nearly all reported multiple symptoms
of psychological distress, including intrusive thoughts, oversensitivity to external stimuli,
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

27

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

difficulties with attention or memory, and social withdrawal as well as mood disorders and
“feelings of depression or sadness that did not go away”. 63
Many of those same prisoners remain in the Pelican Bay SHU today, 17 years on. 64
A lawsuit filed in May 2012 on behalf of prisoners who had spent between 11 and 22 years
in Pelican Bay SHU describes how individual prisoners have struggled to stave off psychosis
and deal with persistent, severe, anxiety and growing feelings of rage by becoming
increasingly withdrawn and numbing all feeling: one prisoner described himself as being “in
a stupor much of the time”, another as feeling “as if I am walking dead”; another how he
feels he is “silently screaming 24 hours a day” and hears disembodied voices. Other
conditions described by the plaintiffs, all of whom remain in the SHU, include chronic
insomnia, hallucinations, mood swings, violent nightmares and panic attacks. 65
There are also prisoners in Pelican Bay S who have personality disorders or who exhibit
chronic disturbed behaviour, who are not classed as seriously mentally ill and thus
excludable from the SHU. As noted above (see 5 (ii)) they include prisoners held
permanently in Lexan-covered cells for repeatedly spitting or throwing urine or faeces,
behaviour rarely seen outside SHU units.
Prisoners in Pelican Bay SHU have also reported a range of physical problems and
impairment resulting from, or exacerbated by, their conditions of confinement. Professor
Haney found that well over half of the prisoners he evaluated for the Madrid litigation
reported symptoms associated with hypertension, including “headaches, trembling, sweaty
palms, and heart palpitations”. 66 Other conditions reported more recently by prisoners or
their advocates include deteriorating eyesight as a result of years of deprivation of natural
light and confinement in spaces which obstruct vision (including photophobia, vision loss
and difficulty focusing); problems with balance; joint problems due to lack of natural light
(causing vitamin D deficiency) and exercise; chronic asthma exacerbated by the enclosed
conditions; severe insomnia and memory loss. Prisoners have also reportedly suffered loss of
skin pigmentation due to the lack of natural light. As described in a letter to the Receiver’s
Office in September 2011 from a lawyer who works closely with prisoners, “White prisoners
are pale; brown prisoners are turning white; black prisoners are lightening to brown”. 67
“Being housed in the SHU has left me looking life a ghost as my color has faded to a very
pale shade as many inmates here do without any sunlight to beat down upon our faces. How I
long to feel warmth steadily beating on me”.
Letter written by a gang validated inmate who has been held in the SHU for 16 years

Similar harmful effects from isolated, cellular confinement have been reported elsewhere. For
example, two prisoners in Louisiana have described physical disabilities resulting from years
of 23-hour cellular confinement, including osteoarthritis aggravated by inadequate exercise,
hypertension, heart disease and insomnia. 68 A study by health experts of prisoners in
isolation units in the UK found inmates suffered from various physical disorders resulting
from their restrictive conditions of confinement: these included impaired eyesight (due to the
lack of any distance vision), weight loss, muscle wastage and memory loss. 69
While some degree of mental suffering may be an inevitable consequence of imprisonment,
international standards are clear that conditions should not impose hardship beyond that
which is necessary on security grounds, and must always be consistent with the obligation of
humane treatment of prisoners. Amnesty International believes that the detrimental effects
on mental and physical health and other harm and suffering endured by prisoners as a result
of years of confinement in the excessively harsh conditions of the Pelican Bay SHU breaches
international law and standards on humane treatment of prisoners and prohibiting torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

28

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

10. SUICIDES
The severe negative psychological consequences of isolation are reflected in data from
various jurisdictions showing that suicides occur more frequently in isolation units than in
the prison population generally. 70 In California, over a five year period from 2006 to 2010,
the number of prison suicides averaged 34 a year (higher than the national average), 71 with
42% occurring in administrative segregation or SHU units. 72
Most suicides in isolation have taken place in administrative segregation units (ASUs).
Although prisoners tend generally to be held for shorter periods in ASUs than in the SHU,
conditions are harsh, with prisoners confined for 23 hours a day alone in small cells, some
without electrical outlets for radio or TV. 73 As shown in Alex Machado’s case, below,
prisoners may also be held for long periods in ASUs while waiting for a space in the SHU.
At the time of writing, no break-down was available for the number of suicides which took
place in segregation units in 2011. However, two of the 34 prison suicides reported in 2011
took place in Pelican Bay prison and both deceased were in isolation units when they took
their lives. One prisoner (Alex Machado) was held in an Administrative Segregation Unit
(ASU); the other (Johnny Owen Vick) was confined to a cell in the Psychiatric Services Unit
where prisoners with SHU terms who have serious mental illness are housed (see 12 (ii)
below).

Details of Alex Machado’s case, made available by his family, reveal a picture of someone in severe
psychological distress during the months leading to his death on 24 October 2011. Alex Machado had been
transferred to Pelican Bay in February 2010 after he was validated as a gang associate and told he would
serve an indeterminate SHU term. He was held in a solitary cell in the ASU, which serves as an “overflow” for
gang-validated prisoners. According to his family, he had shown no significant psychological problems during
his prior 11 years of incarceration and he had been literate and articulate, assisting other prisoners with their
legal appeals. However, his mental state started to deteriorate significantly after a year of isolation in Pelican
Bay. From January 2011 to June 2011, Alex Machado exhibited increasing anxiety and paranoia, according to
prison mental health records, with reports noting that he suffered from anxiety, sleeplessness and panic
attacks; he also reported being watched, suffering from visual hallucinations and hearing voices and knocking
on his cell walls. The records also noted a decline in his attention to hygiene and grooming. On 12 June 2011,
he was placed in a crisis cell for threatening to kill himself. He was returned to his cell but was removed
shortly afterwards when a guard observed a noose (made from torn strips of mattress) hanging from the airduct in his cell and faeces smeared on the wall. Days later, he was informed that his mental condition was
serious enough to exclude him from being held in the SHU. However, he remained in the ASU, despite
continuing to have “active psychotic symptoms”. According to his family, his letters became less frequent
and increasingly distorted in the final months of his life, during which he remained confined alone to a cell for
22 and a half or more hours a day

According to the autopsy report, Alex Machado was last seen alive at approximately 12.15 am on the day of his
death “as he was examined and then cleared by medical staff for a complaint of heart palpitations”. Thirty
minutes later, an officer found him “hanging inside his cell”. In February 2012, Amnesty International wrote
to CDCR expressing concern about inmate allegations that Alex Machado had shown signs of distress for
several hours before his death but guards took no action. CDCR did not respond to these specific allegations,
stating only that “The performance and actions of medical and mental health staff were fully reviewed and
have been addressed”. 74

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

29

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Amnesty International finds it deeply disturbing that any prisoner suffering from the mental
health problems described above should continue to be housed in an isolation cell. The case
appears illustrative of an ongoing pattern of failure by CDCR to address the health care needs
of mentally ill and potentially suicidal inmates.
In California, prison suicides are investigated internally by CDCR and reviewed by clinicians
who are not located at the institution where the deaths occurred. The clinicians’ reports are
then reviewed by the Special Master, a court-appointed monitor charged with overseeing the
state’s compliance with court-ordered reforms to prison mental health care. In late 2006,
CDCR revised its suicide prevention policies, following concern by the Special Master about
the high rate of prison suicides, especially in segregation units. The reforms included
increased monitoring of prisoners during their initial weeks in administrative segregation, as
well as guard training in resuscitation techniques and crisis response and improved
assessment and review procedures within the system generally.
Despite these measures, the annual reports of the expert medical adviser to the Special
Master continued to raise many concerns about suicide prevention and response within CDCR
institutions. The reports from 2006 to 2010, for example, found that, in 72% to 84% of
suicides, there was at least “some degree of inadequate assessment, treatment or
intervention”, meaning that the incidents were “foreseeable and/or preventable” or
“interventions that would have been appropriate were not implemented”. 75 Concerns
included CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and/or first aid not being performed in a timely
manner; failure by prison staff to make use of available records on inmates’ health history;
failure to refer inmates to a higher level of care; and failure to provide adequate screening or
monitoring of inmates. The reports also noted that the majority of prisoners who committed
suicide in CDCR institutions had histories of mental health treatment and/or suicidal
behaviour.
The last available report of the Special Master notes that, in 2010, CDCR “devoted a good
deal of time and resources to improving their performance in the area of suicide prevention
and review”, noting that implementation of preventive strategies must continue to be a high
priority. 76 However, the continued high rate of suicides in California prisons, and case of
Alex Machado in particular, suggests that more needs to be done.
Amnesty International urges the department to ensure that all prisoners receive adequate
monitoring for mental health problems and prompt intervention whenever a prisoner displays
signs of distress or alerts are made by other prisoners. No prisoner with mental health
problems should be held in isolation but should receive treatment in an appropriate mental
health care facility. (See also Section 12 (ii) below) Conditions in ASUs should be reviewed
and all prisoners held in ASU cells for longer than a few days, should have access to
occupational materials and contact with the outside world through TV and/or radio to reduce
the effects of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

30

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

11. LONG TERM EFFECTS OF
ISOLATION
“The effect of years of solitary confinement is
that you always want to be on your own…the
loneliness follows you. I feel anxious in crowds
and I don’t like being around others. Sometimes I
just want to run away and lock myself up…people
who do manage to get out of the SHU keep their
emotions and pain to themselves because they
find it very hard to adapt”
Ex-prisoner who spent almost seven years held in solitary confinement in Pelican Bay

Studies have found that negative effects from prolonged isolation can continue long after
release, including sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, phobias, anger, impaired memory
and problems with normal social interaction. This can make it more difficult for individuals,
already facing challenges as ex-offenders, to successfully reintegrate into society after they
are released from prison. In California, as in other states, most supermax inmates will
eventually be released. One study found that, on average, 900 inmates were released on
parole annually directly from Pelican Bay and Corcoran SHUs during the ten year period from
1997 to 2007. 77 While some prisoners had spent short periods in other units before being
paroled, many were released directly to the street, often with no transitional programming, in
some cases after years of solitary confinement or confinement with one other person for 2224 hours a day. The study found that 62% of prisoners released from Pelican Bay or
Corcoran SHU between January 1997 and December 2007 had been returned to prison for
violating parole by March of 2008, compared to 46% of all prisoners released during the
same period. While the study was unable to draw detailed conclusions from this aggregate
data (e.g. the data was not broken down by criminal history of released offenders, age or
length of time in the SHU), the figures suggested that prisoners released directly from the
SHU may find it more difficult than other prisoners to adjust after release.
CDCR has recently started to include data on SHU releases in its own analyses of recidivism
rates. The first CDCR report to include this data, published in November 2011, found that
inmates who had spent time in the SHU during their incarceration had a 5% higher
recidivism rate than those who had not. 78
Amnesty International believes that all prisoners serving time in isolation should have access
to pre-release or transitional programs that would benefit their reintegration into society.
While such programs may be costly, so too are the financial and social costs of SHU
confinement. Resources could be better used to focus on providing effective treatment and
rehabilitation programs, in line with the USA’s international human rights obligations, rather
than measures designed solely for incapacitation and security purposes.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

31

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Picture taken inside a SHU cell showing a bunk bed and toilet. Image copyright credit - Private

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

32

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

12. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
CARE IN SHU HOUSING
"(My husband) has seen people driven insane in
the SHU…especially inmates who don't get visits
get crazy".
Wife of gang-validated prisoner who has been at Pelican Bay since 2000

MEDICAL CARE
International standards provide that all prisoners should have access to care to meet their
medical needs. The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners state that prisoners “shall
have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on grounds
of their legal situation” (Principle 9); the SMR provide, among other things, that “Sick
prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to
civil hospitals.” (SMR 22(2)) 79
Under US law, prison officials must provide adequate care for prisoners’ “serious medical
needs” and deliberate failure to do so has been held to violate the prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment under the Constitution.
“The more confinement a person is subjected to at Pelican Bay State Prison S.H.U. does
slowly take its toll that costs the prisoner in the mind, body and family – without incentives –
daily deprivation – the mind and body becomes stagnant – you can only exercise so much.”
Letter written to Amnesty International by prisoner in Pelican Bay SHU

There has been ongoing litigation for more than a decade over California’s failure to provide
adequate medical care to prisoners. In a class action lawsuit, Brown v Plata, prisoners
alleged that California’s deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious medical needs amounted
to cruel and unusual punishment. The federal court agreed that the California had failed to
provide a constitutional standard of health care and in 2002 the State settled the lawsuit by
undertaking to reform the system. However, serious problems persisted and in 2006 the
court appointed a federal Receiver to take over the management of medical care in all
California state prisons in order to oversee the reforms. 80 In January 2012, the court found
that, although there was still room for improvement, substantial progress had been made
toward achieving a constitutional level of medical care for prisoners. 81
However, there have been persistent complaints about inadequate provision of medical care
for prisoners in Pelican Bay SHU. As noted under Section 9, above, prisoners are reported to
suffer from a range of physical problems and illnesses resulting from, or exacerbated by,
years of confinement to small cells with little exercise or access to natural light. Prisoners
and some advocates have alleged that many of these prisoners, some now in their late 50s or
60s, are not receiving adequate treatment for chronic health problems, including some which
are likely to have been caused or at least exacerbated by their detention conditions, such as
vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis, and eye problems. It has been alleged that prisoners
have not been provided with medication or equipment to manage their health problems and
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

33

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

attendant disabilities, and that there have been delays in treatment or referrals to medical
practitioners. One prisoner with advanced liver disease wrote to Amnesty International stating
that repeated recommendations by a liver specialist that he be transferred to a hospital for
surgical banding to prevent internal bleeding were ignored for two years, so that he suffered a
near-fatal rupture by the time he was sent for the procedure. Another prisoner wrote that he
suffered months in acute pain without medication after being diagnosed with a dental nerve
disease.
When Amnesty International raised concern about the reports of poor medical care during its
visit to Pelican Bay, its delegates were told that any prisoner with a serious medical need,
including those in the SHU, would be referred to an outside hospital where necessary. The
medical officer said that all individual complaints about medical care were referred to the
Receiver.

“We (prisoners) are made to serve an indefinite SHU-term in solitary confinement unless we ‘debrief’, and there are many ways to make you debrief. I will attempt to lay out them all: (1) deprive
you of adequate medical treatment and make it clear to you that if you debrief you can get all the
medical treatment you need (2) deprive you of an adequate diet nutritional and calories. The food
that you are provided is so poorly prepared that you cannot even eat it. And the cooks/correctional
officials etc. say if you want a well cooked meal or a balanced diet then debrief (3) when you make a
complaint about being in an ice cold cell and needing extra linen the officer tell you ‘why do you
subject yourself to all this harsh treatment when you can just debrief’…and if I do not debrief I am
told I’ll never be released from solitary confinement’.
Letter sent to Amnesty International by inmate currently held in solitary confinement in Pelican Bay SHU
Since its visit, several prisoners have written to the organization saying they have been told
by institutional gang investigators (IGIs) that they will only get better medical care if they
“debrief”. The Ruiz v Brown lawsuit, cited above, alleged that “prisoners with medical
concerns are routinely told by prison officials that if they want better medical care for their
conditions or illnesses, or improved pain management, the way to obtain adequate care is to
debrief”. 82 The lawsuit also alleges that, “The denial of adequate medical care at Pelican
Bay is not isolated to a few doctors or correctional officials, but is rather a longstanding
pattern and practice which, on information and belief, has been officially sanctioned by
defendants for the purpose of coercing plaintiff class to debrief”. 83
Amnesty International is not in a position to assess the substance of the above complaints
but the allegations are serious. The organization urges CDCR and the Receiver to review
specifically the provision of health care to prisoners in the SHU, in particular the “short
corridor” (where long-term gang-validated prisoners are held, which has been the source of
many of the complaints about inadequate health care). The prison authorities should also
issue clear instructions that under no circumstances should medical treatment be used as an
inducement to debrief. International standards are clear that all prisoners regardless of their
custody status are entitled to treatment which meets their medical and mental health care
needs. Prisoners suffering from chronic health problems as result of long-term SHU
confinement with inadequate light and exercise should be prioritised for transfer to housing
conditions which will not be detrimental to their health.
In January 2012, the court in Plata v Brown instructed the parties involved in the case (the
plaintiffs, CDCR and Receiver) to prepare for the eventual ending of the Receivership so that
the state could resume control of prison medical care. The state Legislative Analyst Office
(LAO) noted in report in April 2012 that, “Given CDCR’s poor track record in providing
medical care to inmates, it would be unwise to return control of the inmate medical program
to the department without first establishing independent oversight and evaluation”. 84 The
LAO recommended that the Legislature create a new oversight board, independent of CDCR,
to oversee the delivery of inmate medical care to ensure that the state delivered a
constitutional level of medical care, and that the Legislature “might also consider requiring
the board to oversee inmate mental health and dental care programs”. 85 Amnesty
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

34

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

International recommends that the remit of any oversight mechanism include specific
reference to the need for review of medical and mental health care for prisoners in
segregation units (SHU and ASUs) given the isolated nature of such units and specific health
care issues that may arise as a result of such confinement.

MENTAL HEALTH CARE
As a result of the Madrid v Gomez ruling prisoners diagnosed with serious mental illness are
no longer held in Pelican Bay SHU. The exclusionary criteria include prisoners with major
depressive or psychotic disorders, schizophrenia, organic brain damage, mental retardation
and “severe personality disorder that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis or
depression and results in significant functional impairment”, as well as inmates who have a
prior history of psychosis as a result of SHU confinement. (SHU Mental Health Services
Delivery System, (MHSDS) 2009 Revision). Prisoners sentenced to SHU terms who are
diagnosed with serious mental illness are housed in the 127-bed Psychiatric Services Unit
(PSU) at Pelican Bay prison or are sent to another facility for treatment. 86
Psychiatric Services Unit
Prisoners assigned to the PSU at Pelican Bay are held in single cells which have narrow
windows to the outside and windows in the cell doors. According to the Mental Health
Services manual for the PSU, PSU inmates receive individualized treatment plans and have
at least ten hours a week of “scheduled structured therapeutic activities”. 87 The manual does
not specify whether whether this always takes place outside the cell but during its visit to
Pelican Bay, Amnesty International was told that PSU prisoners receive therapy sessions
outside their cells for a few hours a week. These take place with a psychologist or mental
health clinician, either individually or in a small group setting. The group therapy room,
observed by the organization during its visit, is an enclosed area in the middle of the unit
where prisoners are confined to six individual holding cells with the therapist sitting in front
of the cells. There are also cells for individual therapy which are the size of a telephone
booth and have solid walls on three sides with mesh at the front; prisoners can sit and have
sessions unrestrained in these booths, with the psychologist or other clinician outside. The
booths viewed by Amnesty International appeared dark inside and not an ideal therapeutic
setting. However, the organization was told all sessions must take place either in the booths
or at the cell door, for security reasons.
PSU prisoners have the same amount of outdoor exercise - 10 hours a week - as ordinary
SHU inmates, but this is taken in individual outdoor cages instead of an enclosed yard with
little sunlight and no view. The PSU exercise cages Amnesty International saw during its
visit had a view of the hills and forest in the distance and the cages were close enough to
allow prisoners to communicate with the person next to them. Although the cages are an
improvement on the SHU yards, they had no equipment and were too small to throw a
handball. None of the cages was occupied at the time of Amnesty International’s visit (even
though the weather was fine) and staff said that prisoners did not always choose to take
exercise or that it was sometimes cancelled if the weather was bad.
Although the PSU provides a less harsh environment than the SHU and prisoners receive
some out of cell therapy and other treatment, inmates are still confined alone to cells for long
periods. Amnesty International believes cell door consultations should be minimised due to
lack of privacy and where possible more out of cell therapy should be provided, including in
secure dayrooms as an alternative to the booths. Prisoners should be encouraged to take
outdoor exercise, both for their physical and mental health, with improvements to the size of
the outdoor space, with provision of a covering and equipment or other amenities.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

35

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Example of holding cells, similar to those used during therapy sessions in Pelican Bay SHU. Image courtesy of American Friends
Service Committee

MENTAL HEALTH MONITORING OF PRISONERS IN PELICAN BAY SHU
International standards, and those set by US professional organizations, require careful
monitoring of all prisoners held in isolation due to the negative impact this can have on the
psychological health of individuals even without pre-existing illness. The UN SMR require
daily monitoring of prisoners placed in “close confinement” (Rule 32). The (US) National
Commission for Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) has observed that conditions in supermaximum security isolation facilities “Even for the most stable individuals …may precipitate
mental health or health difficulties” and that “daily contact by medical staff and at least
weekly contact with mental health staff is required”, noting that such contacts “must be
meaningful and allow sufficient interaction for such assessments to take place”. 88 Under its
strategic plan for 2010-2015, CDCR has said it intends that 90% of its health care programs
will be in “substantial compliance” with NCCHC standards by June 2015. 89
Clinicians at PSU said they conducted mental health screening of all new arrivals at PBSP
and also received inmates from the SHU for treatment at PSU, through referrals by both
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

36

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

custody and medical staff. They also said that prisoners themselves can seek a mental health
evaluation at any time and that mental health clinicians regularly visited the SHU units.
According to the CDCR manual for mental health provision in the SHUs, the objective is for
clinical rounds to be conducted “every other week” in order “to identify mental health needs
for all inmates who are not currently in [mental health services delivery system]”; the manual
states that these rounds are provided by Primary Clinicians in PBSP SHU and Licensed
Psychiatric Technicians (LPTs) in other SHUs. However, this falls short of the frequency of
monitoring recommended by the NCCHC, above.
Amnesty International is concerned that the isolated nature of the SHU pods and difficulties
of communication through cell doors mean that prisoners may not receive the monitoring they
require; a prison doctor, while defending cell front consultations as necessary for security
purposes, conceded that it was difficult to see the face of an inmate through the perforated
cell door.
Concerns about the adequacy of mental health care in Pelican Bay SHU were raised in the
Ruiz v Brown class action lawsuit, which claims that, during the “rounds” of the SHU pods
every two weeks, a psychologist “walks past eight cells in approximately 30 seconds”, calling
out to prisoners and asking if they are “okay”, and that prisoners in neighbouring cells will be
fully aware when someone calls out for help. The lawsuit states that “There is no opportunity
during this brief encounter for a private consultation with a mental-health practitioner”. 90
According to the lawsuit, beyond a “brief intake screening” on arrival to the SHU, the only
mental health assessment that many SHU prisoners receive occurs at the Institutional
Classification Committee hearings every 180 days, at which a mental health staff member is
present. The lawsuit states that, at these hearings, “Each prisoner is asked two standard
questions: (1) whether he has a history of mental illness; and (2) whether he wants to hurt
himself or others. These questions are asked in front of the Warden, Correctional Captain,
and numerous other correctional staff. No further mental health evaluation occurs”. 91
Mental health screening and monitoring is essential to identify those who become psychotic
or suffer other serious mental illness requiring removal from the SHU under the Madrid v
Gomez ruling. However, as noted above, there are prisoners in Pelican Bay reportedly
suffering from various behavioural and mental health problems which do not meet the criteria
for serious mental illness that would exclude them from the SHU, and who will thus remain
in the SHU regardless of the mental health provision available. This is of concern given that
conditions such as those in Pelican Bay SHU are liable to be inherently damaging to the
physical and mental health of prisoners. Amnesty International urges the authorities to take
steps to ensure that no prisoners with mental illness or mental or behavioural disabilities are
held in solitary confinement and subjected to the harsh and punitive conditions existing in
Pelican Bay SHU.
As noted above, in the case of Alex Machado (see Section 10) there is concern that prisoners
who are a potential suicide risk have not been adequately treated while in administrative
segregation units other than the SHU, including in Pelican Bay. All prisoners held in
segregation units should have adequate mental health monitoring and access to treatment
and should not remain for prolonged periods in solitary confinement.

CORCORAN SHU AND ENHANCED OUTPATIENT HUB
Prisoners with serious mental illness are excluded by policy only from Pelican Bay SHU,
given the unique harshness of the conditions in that facility. Prisoners with serious mental
illness can be held in other SHU facilities and treated under the Correctional Clinical Case
Management System (CCCMS) or, if more intervention is required, referred to a prison
Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) or another mental health facility. In Corcoran, prisoners
classified as needing treatment under the
CCCMS may be held in the SHU if they are “stabilised” on medication. While they are
monitored by mental health staff, they are subject to the same general conditions as all SHU
prisoners, confined to cells for 22 and a half hours a day. Amnesty International was told by
37
Index: AMR 51/060/2012
Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

staff that CCCMS inmates are seen almost daily by nurses dispensing medication, at least
monthly by a clinician and every 90 days by the psychiatrist.
Corcoran prison also has an EOP hub in the Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) which
houses SHU inmates with serious mental illness who require more active intervention and
monitoring, who will be referred to other psychiatric facilities if beds are available. EOP
prisoners also spend most of their time confined to cells but are reportedly seen daily by
licensed nursing staff and at least weekly by a mental health clinician.
While CDCR guidelines provide that consultations must be conducted in a confidential
setting as far as possible, the Corcoran chief psychologist told Amnesty International that
consultations and therapy for SMI SHU inmates (including those in the EOP/ASU hub) always
takes place either at the cell door or in a holding booth within the consultation room, for
security reasons. He expressed the view that SMI inmates housed in the Corcoran SHU
received humane treatment, with some outdoor exercise and access to therapeutic materials
in their cells. However, Amnesty International believes that prisoners with serious mental
illness should not be housed in an environment where they are confined to cells for prolonged
periods with little opportunity for social or therapeutic interaction. Amnesty International
notes that the manual for the delivery of mental health services for prisoners in the SHU
states that “While some therapeutic activities may take place within the cell, wherever
possible treatment activities should take place outside the cell”. 92

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

38

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

13. WOMEN PRISONERS IN THE SHU
Fifty-eight women were serving SHU terms in Valley State Prison for Women at the time of
Amnesty International’s visit in November 2011. As with the male SHU population, women
SHU inmates are confined to a cell for at least 22 and a half hours a day, alone or with a
cell-mate, and have no access to prison work, training or vocational programs.
Nearly all female SHU prisoners are serving defined SHU terms for disciplinary offences,
reportedly ranging from a few months to a year or more. While the organization was unable to
obtain a breakdown of offences for which women had been sentenced to the SHU, a senior
staff member said that most were there for “assaultive” or “disruptive” behaviour. Some
assaults involved throwing bodily waste or spitting at a prison staff member, which, as noted
above, is indicative of mental health or behavioural problems. There were women in the SHU
who were in the prison’s “Correctional Clinical Case Management System” and thus receiving
treatment or monitoring for mental illness. A team of mental health professionals was on duty
during week-days and on call at week-ends. There was treatment room in the unit, with
therapy taking place in individual booths. Staff reported that some women found it easier to
cope in the SHU than in the general prison population, as did one of the prisoners
interviewed by Amnesty International. However, the organization remains concerned that
prisoners, especially those with mental illness or emotional or behavioural problems, are
confined to cells for such long periods in what amount to punitive conditions.
In early 2012, the female SHU population was moved from Valley State Prison to the
California Institution for Women (CIW), where part of the facility has been converted into a
SHU unit. There were 68 prisoners in the CIW SHU as of June 2012. According to figures
provided by CDCR in July 2012, 50 inmates in the SHU and the adjacent administrative
segregation unit (ASU) were in the Correctional Clinical Case Management System. 93 As the
SHU/ASU combined reportedly houses fewer than 100 prisoners, this indicates that a
significant proportion of the inmates confined to the units, and thus in isolation, suffer from
mental illness.
Around two-thirds of the custody staff at CIW are male, similar to the proportion in Valley
State prison. While there is a slightly lower ratio of male to female staff in the CIW SHU
during the morning shift (60% male officers to 40% female officers), there are more male
custody officers working other shifts. Only male staff are assigned to the SHU/ASU during the
night shift and 75% of custody staff working the afternoon and early evening shift are
male. 94 This is contrary to international standards which provide that female prisoners should
be attended and supervised only by female officers, and that male staff providing services in
female facilities should always be accompanied by a female officer (SMR 53(2) and (3)). The
UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners (Bangkok Rules), adopted by the UN
General Assembly in November 2010 confirmed the principles in the SMR. 95
The authorities have stated that anti-discrimination employment laws, as well as specific
labour agreements involving correctional officers in California, mean that CDCR cannot refuse
to employ male guards in women’s prisons; however international standards provide that
measures designed solely to protect the rights and special status of women are not
considered discriminatory ((Principle 5 (2), Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment). Restrictions on the access of male
staff to areas of prisons where women are showering or undressing are necessary to protect
the right of detainees to privacy.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

39

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

The presence of unsupervised male staff in women’s correctional facilities raises a range of
concerns for the protection of human rights. There have been widespread reports of sexual
misconduct by male correctional staff against women inmates in prisons across the USA,
including in California. During a previous Amnesty International visit to Valley State prison in
1998, prisoners reported that it was common for some male officers to watch them dressing
and undressing in their cells and to touch their genitals while conducting frisk searches (patdown searches of clothed inmates), and to use sexually offensive language. 96 While male
officers in California are no longer permitted to carry out any searches of female inmates, and
there are reportedly improved procedures for addressing sexual misconduct, the organization
remains concerned by procedures which allow male custody staff unsupervised access to
women’s housing units. This is of particular concern in the SHU, where prisoners are able to
be observed at all times in their cells.
Under prison regulations, female SHU inmates, like male prisoners, must be “in full view” at
all times. In Valley State SHU, only female officers were allowed in the central observation
booth, as this gave a full view into the showers. However, the showers were sited in the main
unit where male and female custody staff patrolled; the showers had open bars with a
covered section in the middle described as a modesty panel, but did not afford total privacy.
Within the cells, the toilet and sink were situated by the cell doors which had windows
looking onto the tier patrolled by male and female staff. It was reported that most women
wanted to cover their cell windows while washing at the sink but that the practice was against
the rules. Amnesty International believes that allowing male staff to patrol areas where
women may be viewed in their cells while dressing or washing, or when taking showers, is
inherently degrading and a violation of the right of prisoners to be treated with respect for
their human dignity, and the right to privacy, as enshrined in the ICCPR.
Amnesty International recommends that as a general rule female prisoners should be
supervised only by female staff, in line with the SMR. The UN Human Rights Committee, in
commenting on the USA’s report on its implementation of its obligations under the ICCPR,
has recommended that “legislation allowing male officers access to women's quarters should
be amended to provide at least that they will always be accompanied by women officers.”
(CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 2006: 33).
Amnesty International recommends that in order to comply with the SMR and the Human
Rights Committee’s recommendations, male staff should not be deployed in the women’s
SHU area or, at a minimum, all areas of the SHU should at all times be attended and
supervised by female staff and that at no time should any areas of the SHU be attended by
male staff alone. Male staff should be not be required or permitted to carry out duties or
enter locations in the SHU where they can observe women in the shower or at other times
when they are undressed. As the organization has noted in previous reports, a growing
number of jurisdictions in the USA have placed certain restrictions on male duties in
women’s prisons and the US courts have upheld such restrictions as lawful. 97 In some states
this has included prohibition of male staff from working in female housing areas or in female
bathroom or shower areas.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

40

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Picture taken inside a SHU cell showing a sink and typical canteen food. Image copyright credit - Private

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

41

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

14. CRITERA AND CURRENT
PROCEDURE FOR SHU ASSIGNMENTS
“People are validated on the basis of one
individual saying “I heard him say something…or
I saw him do something” There is no policing of
the system, they do whatever they want and they
get away with it. The SHU units are like torture
chambers…my main issue is with the solitary
confinement and the validation”
Sister of a 50 year old gang validated prisoner, originally sentenced to 15 years to life; he has now been imprisoned for 25 years
and has been in solitary confinement for a total of 21 years

Amnesty International was unable to obtain a detailed break-down of the current California
SHU population; however, based on the overall figures on numbers in the SHU, it appears
that around a third are serving determinate (fixed) SHU terms for serious offences or rule
violations set out under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3315.
Guidelines for the length of fixed SHU terms range from two months to five years for offences
including sexual misconduct, harassment, threats, assaults, escape attempts, weapons
possession and murder (Section 3341.5). Some of the offences carrying a SHU term include
acts which are classified as serious assaults or other offences but may also be symptoms of
behavioural or mental health problems. 98 Offences listed as serious rule violations (SRV)
carrying a potential SHU term also include offences such as “Tattooing or possession of
tattoo paraphernalia”, “Self mutilation or attempted suicide for the purpose of
manipulation” and “A repeated pattern of rule violations for the same offense”.
Prisoners charged with serious disciplinary offences are entitled to some due process
protections in the internal proceedings against them, although these are less than those
required in a criminal trial. They include written notice of the charges and a statement of the
evidence to be relied on, a hearing before an impartial officer at which the prisoner may
produce documents in his or her defence and has a conditional right to call and question
witnesses. The accused prisoner will also be assigned a staff member to assist in the
investigation and/or preparation and presentation of a defence, where this is considered
necessary for a fair hearing. 99 Prisoners accused of criminal misconduct while in prison may
also have their cases referred to the prosecutor for trial in the criminal courts which could
result in an additional prison sentence within the range set for the criminal offence. Once a
prisoner has been found guilty of an offence carrying a possible SHU term, the Institutional
Classification Committee (ICC) 100 decides on whether or not the prisoner will be assigned to
the SHU and sets the term according to the guidelines for that offence. Prisoners serving
determinate SHU terms can have their terms reduced for good behaviour. The term may be
extended if the prisoner commits repeat offences while in the SHU, or they may be retained
in the SHU if their release is considered to constitute a severe security risk. 101

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

42

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

The large majority of the California SHU population – some 2,280 prisoners 102 – have been
assigned to indeterminate (indefinite) SHU terms on the basis of being “validated” as a
member or associate of a prison gang. Validations are made through an internal procedure
and prisoners can be assigned to indefinite SHU terms by CDCR without being accused or
convicted of any offence or rule violation.
In his 2011 report on solitary confinement, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment urged states to adopt procedural
safeguards when imposing solitary confinement, in order to reduce the chances of it being
applied in an “arbitrary or excessive” manner. His recommendations included providing
individuals with a “genuine opportunity to challenge both the nature of their confinement
and its underlying justification through a process of administrative review”; informing the
detained person of what he or she must do to be removed from solitary confinement; a
meaningful appeals process and review by an independent body, as well as an opportunity to
appeal to the courts. 103
SHU terms in California are subject to administrative review, but there is no external review
of such assignments other than through the courts. As described below, prisoner advocates
and others have criticised the internal review process as failing to provide adequate
safeguards, particularly for prisoners given indefinite SHU terms on the basis of a gang
validation. While prisoners may bring court actions challenging their gang validations or SHU
assignments or conditions, prison administrators are afforded wide discretion in measures
taken on security grounds and prisoners face significant obstacles in bringing such
actions. 104

PRISONERS SERVING INDETERMINATE SHU TERMS ON THE BASIS OF GANG
VALIDATIONS
“My position remains…California Department of Corrections/PBSP-SHU policies and
practices, have violated our human rights and subjected us to torture – for the purpose of
coercing inmates into becoming informants against other inmates, etc., for the state.”
Letter written to Amnesty International by prisoner held in solitary confinement in Pelican Bay SHU

As noted above, for prisoners who are validated as gang members or associates, the main
route out of the SHU to date has been to “debrief”, a process which requires them to
renounce their gang connections and provide detailed information on other alleged prison
gang members or associates. This is a procedure which many prisoners decline to undertake
for various reasons: they may not want to “snitch” on (inform on) other inmates on principle
or because of the risk of retaliation against themselves or family members; in other cases
prisoners dispute being involved in a gang or they dispute the level of their alleged
involvement or deny any recent involvement, and thus maintain they have no evidence to
provide. In 2005, CDCR introduced new regulations to provide an alternative route out of the
SHU by creating a category of “inactive status”, whereby SHU prisoners who can establish
they have not been involved in gang activity for a minimum of six years may be considered for
release from the SHU by the classification committee.
Despite the introduction of “inactive” status, hundreds of prisoners have continued to serve
years of indefinite SHU confinement. In August 2011, CDCR spokesperson Scott Kernan
reported that the average term served by prisoners in SHU housing was 6.8 years. 105
However, as described above, more than 500 prisoners in Pelican Bay in 2011 (around half
the prison’s SHU population) had spent over ten years in the SHU; 222 had been in the SHU
for 15 or more years and 78 more than 20 years. Many had been in Pelican Bay SHU since it
opened in 1989, all held under the same harsh conditions throughout that period, without
any ability to change their situation through good behaviour or programming. 106 Amnesty
International has received information about prisoners, some now in their late 50s or 60s,
who have spent decades in the SHU without incurring any significant disciplinary write-ups;
for some prisoners, their first major “rule violation” was for participating in the 2011 hunger
strike.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

43

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

CONCERNS ABOUT GANG VALIDATION CRITERIA
“So, the suffering is to make you feel hopeless, helpless…and your only way to stop the
suffering is to debrief”.
Gang validated inmate currently held in Pelican Bay SHU

Amnesty International is not in a position to evaluate in detail the criteria deployed in the
gang validation process. However, there has been widespread criticism from prisoners,
advocates and others that the present process is too discretionary and that, while three
independent “source items” are required to validate someone as a gang member or associate,
these need not relate to any specific gang-related activity or illegal act. The independent
“source items” can include tattoos or being in possession of books or materials or, it is
alleged, simply being seen talking to another alleged gang member in a unit where a prisoner
is housed. If a prisoner is visited by someone suspected of being a gang member or
associate, even if they are visiting as a relative, this can also be used against them.
Information may also be based on confidential sources which can be impossible to
challenge. 107
Under the regulations, the term “associate” is someone deemed to be involved “periodically
or regularly with members or associates of a gang”, and, it is alleged, can be loosely applied
to include association with prisoners of similar background and the same racial group. Many
prisoners have also complained that, despite being free of any gang activities or association
for six years or more, they have not been held eligible for release from the SHU. Prisoners
have allegedly been denied inactive status based solely on being on a list of names provided
by anonymous informants, or for having certain drawings in their cell or being in possession
of literature associated with political ideologies such as the Black Panthers.
The harsh conditions of the SHU have presented prisoners with what a federal court has
described as “an overwhelming incentive for an inmate to embrace the risk of debriefing”. 108
According to prisoner advocates and attorneys, pressure to debrief can serve to compound
problems regarding the reliability of evidence. As one lawyer put it, if a prisoner is wrongly
assigned to the SHU, or has no current information, but decides to debrief, “they won’t have
evidence to disclose, so they have a strong motive … to name others/anyone”. He referred to
this as a “downward spiral” in which the named individuals will in turn be placed in the
SHU, as can anyone associating with them.

CONCERNS ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND THE HARSH CONSEQUENCES OF AN
INDETERMINATE SHU ASSIGNMENT
“I’ve been eligible for parole since 2004 – the parole board has told me [1998, 2001, 2003,
2008], if I ever expect to receive a parole date, I have to debrief and get out of SHU”.
Letter written to Amnesty International by prisoner held in solitary confinement for more than 15 years as a gang associate

Concerns have been expressed about the fairness of both the initial gang validation process
and the review of indeterminate SHU assignments. The federal courts have ruled that
prisoners are entitled to some due process when they are assigned to an indefinite SHU term
on the basis of a gang validation or other security ground. 109 However, because such
assignments are considered to be an administrative measure and not “punishment”, the due
process protections required are less than in a criminal or serious disciplinary proceeding.
The US Supreme Court has held that due process requirements are met where prisoners are
given a statement of the reasons for their assignment to a “supermax” facility, which would
“serve as a guide for future behaviour”, have an opportunity to be heard in the matter, and
the placement is subject to appeal and administrative review. (Wilkinson v Austin, 2005). 110
There is no requirement for further due process protection, such as an adversarial proceeding
or for the prisoner to be represented by counsel or be able to call or cross examine witnesses.
The courts have ruled that there must be “some evidence” with “some indicia of reliability”
to support a gang validation, but this standard is met if there is any evidence in the record
that could support a validation. The Supreme Court has held that reviews of long-term
segregation must be “meaningful” to avoid them being used a “pretext for indefinite
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

44

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

confinement,” 111 however, no clear standard has been set as to what constitutes
“meaningful” review of current supermax confinement and courts have upheld review
procedures that provide only minimal protections. 112
In California, Institutional Gang Investigators (IGIs) attached to each prison compile the
evidence that forms the basis of a gang validation. Following challenges to the procedures in
the courts, prisoners are entitled to notice of the allegations, disclosure of all source items
used in the validation review and copies of all non-confidential source documents. They are
also entitled to an interview with the IGI at which they must have an opportunity to present
their views about the evidence used for the validation verbally or in writing, and be provided
with a written record of the interview. The “validation package” is then sent to the Office of
Correctional Safety (OCS) at CDCR which reviews the record and accepts or rejects the
validation. It is reported that the OCS very rarely rejects the validations and that, in practice,
the IGIs are the “primary decision makers”. Critics of the procedure have alleged that IGIs
vary in terms of their competence and reliability, with different criteria sometimes applied in
different institutions. 113 Prisoners’ lawyers and other advocates have further maintained that
the OCS does not provide any meaningful independent oversight or investigation of the IGI
decisions.
A prison classification committee reviews an indeterminate SHU placement every 180 days
at a hearing the prisoner is entitled to attend; the prisoner may also present documentary
evidence to support any application for change in status and may have a limited right to a
staff assistant. 114 However, under the present system, these reviews are reported to do little
more than confirm the original assignment, unless the prisoner agrees to debrief or is eligible
for consideration under the six-year “inactive” criteria. Amnesty International has received
several letters from prisoners stating that they no longer attend the review hearings,
something its delegates were also told during cell-front interviews. According to a recent
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of prisoners who have served more than ten years in
Pelican Bay SHU, “No examination of continued gang activity or association occurs at the
180 day review, nor is there any assessment of whether the prisoner’s behaviour requires
continued SHU placement. For this reason, such reviews are meaningless and few Pelican
Bay SHU prisoners attend them.” 115
While the procedures fall short of the due process protections required if a prisoner is
charged with a criminal or serious disciplinary offence, the consequences of a SHU
assignment in California can be severe, not just in terms of the length of time prisoners may
be isolated and deprived of access to work, vocational training or other programs, but also in
terms of the time served in prison. Reportedly, around a quarter of the SHU population are
serving “term to life” sentences (known as “indeterminate sentences”), where a minimum
term is imposed up to life imprisonment (for example “7 years to life” or “25 years to life”).
Prisoners with these sentences are eligible for a parole hearing once they have served the
minimum eligible release date given in their sentence. Amnesty International has been told
that, in practice, prisoners serving term to life sentences will never be granted parole while
they are in the SHU. This is said to be partly because they have no access to programs
which would enable them to show that they meet the criteria for parole eligibility but also
because of what has been referred to as an “unwritten policy” of not granting parole to
alleged gang affiliates serving SHU terms. 116 Amnesty International has heard from prisoners
who served their minimum term years ago but have been denied parole solely on the basis of
being in the SHU; some have reportedly been told by parole board members that they will not
get parole unless they debrief. Also, due to legislative changes in 2010, prisoners serving
determinate prison sentences can no longer earn “good conduct” credits (to reduce the time
served) while they are in the SHU for alleged gang affiliations and thus will spend longer in
prison than if they were in the prison general population.
Some prisoners rights lawyers have expressed concern that, in practice, the review of
indeterminate SHU assignments in California falls short of the minimal standard approved by
the US Supreme Court in Wilkinson v Austin. Unlike the procedure for assignment to the
Ohio State Penitentiary (the subject of the Wilkinson decision), for example, California
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

45

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

prisoners are not necessarily provided with notice of the specific factual reasons for an
indeterminate SHU assignment nor as in Ohio do they have two levels of appeal; the
classification committee is not required to provide a written statement of every basis for the
recommendation to retain a prisoner in the SHU at the review hearing, unlike in Ohio. 117

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

46

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

15. CDCR’S PROPOSED REFORMS OF
CRITERIA FOR INDETERMINATE SHU
ASSIGNMENTS AND INTRODUCTION
OF STEP-DOWN PROGRAM
“I’ve already been in SHU since 1988, what do I
need to work on? What exactly are they going to
see in my attitude and actions during the four
phases of the step-down program that they
haven’t seen already in the past twenty plus years
during my extreme isolated confinement?”
Pelican Bay SHU inmate’s response to policy reforms, May 2012

During Amnesty International’s meetings with CDCR staff in November 2011, the department
stressed that there were inmates in the SHU with serious gang connections, but
acknowledged that they “over-validated” and that there were prisoners in the SHU who did
not warrant such a restrictive level of housing. CDCR also acknowledged that there were
people assigned to the SHU as gang associates who had no direct role in gang activity.
CDCR stated that the reforms under consideration were aimed at making the system fairer as
well as targeting resources more effectively, taking into account the high cost of SHU
confinement and the need to manage a tight budget. Amnesty International was told that the
process would ultimately reduce the SHU population to ensure that only prisoners who could
not be safely housed in a less secure setting would be assigned to the SHU.
In March 2012, CDCR published its proposals for reform in a document entitled Security
Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy. The strategy outlined
proposals for 1) amending current policy on identifying and managing gang members and
other disruptive groups and 2) implementing a new, “behaviour based” step down process for
gang members or associates who are assigned to the SHU.
The new proposals broaden the criteria to include management not just of prison gangs
originating within prison, but also “other criminal gangs, such as street gangs or disruptive
groups comprised of members and associates”. CDCR will no longer utilize the terms “Prison
Gangs” and “Disruptive Groups”, and all will now fall within a new category of a Security
Threat Group (STG). CDCR will certify the existing main prison gangs, and other groups
identified as presenting a “severe threat” to staff safety and institutional security, as STG-I.
Other groups, such as those associated with street gangs, who according to CDCR may play a
secondary role to the main prison gangs, will be labelled STG-II.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

47

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

Under the proposals, only validated STG-I Members will be automatically assigned to the
SHU, based on the validation alone. Prisoners who are validated as STG-I Associates
(individuals not formally accepted into a gang but who are involved “periodically or regularly
with gang members or associates”) “will not routinely be placed in SHU, based solely on
their validation”, but SHU assignment in these cases will depend upon whether or not they
engaged in “serious disciplinary and/or criminal gang behaviour.” 118 The proposals state
that STG-II Members and Associates will not be automatically assigned to the SHU, but may
be considered for placement if they are found to engage in “repetitive criminal gang
behaviour”.
The reforms include proposals to make the gang validation process more objective by
introducing a “weighted” point system alongside the three independent source items that are
already required. This means that at least 10 points will be required to validate someone as
an STG member or associate, based on a weighted scale (e.g. a symbol, clothing or hand
signals associated with a certified gang, or written materials containing a gang symbol, would
incur 2 points, information from an informant 3 points, visits from an alleged gang member
or associate 4 points, and so on).
However, the proposals will still use the same criteria as under the present system to validate
someone as an STG member or associate. This means that a prisoner can still be validated as
an STG-I member and assigned to an indeterminate SHU term on the basis of symbols, or
who he associates or is seen with, without evidence of actual gang-related activity.
Continued placement in the SHU “based on membership and not behaviour” has been
described by advocates as one of the main problems with the new proposals. There is also
concern that, without the need to provide evidence of specific criminal or gang-related
activities in order to validate someone, the distinction between who is a “member” and who
is an “associate” may remain blurred in practice, with some prisoners who have only loose
gang associations being wrongfully assigned to the SHU.
Under the proposals, the IGIs will continue to conduct the investigations into gang activity
and prepare the validation packages for OCS approval. Prisoner representatives and others
have expressed concern that no substantial “due process” changes have been proposed to
the system, and that there remain insufficient checks and balances. 119 CDCR is reported to
have responded to some of these concerns by considering allowing prisoners some
representation at their initial classification hearing and adding another layer of administrative
review. However, no details of any amendments to the proposals had been published as of
August 2012.
Some advocates have expressed concern that broadening the criteria for an STG group to
include prisoners who are associated with street gangs or other groups could potentially
increase assignments to the SHU. However, CDCR has stated it anticipates that its proposals
will decrease the number of people held in the SHU, and in Administrative Segregation Units
(which often serve as a SHU overflow), by making SHU-assignments for most STG members
or associates based on serious criminal behaviour or rule violations, and by allowing a route
out of the SHU through the step-down process, which would replace the six-year “inactive”
status.
While measures to reduce the number of prisoners held in security housing units are a
positive step, in Amnesty International’s view the proposals should ensure that only prisoners
who present a clear and present threat, who cannot be safely housed in a less secure setting,
are assigned to the SHU. Given the serious consequences of SHU confinement, the
authorities should ensure that STG validations are based on a thorough and impartial
investigation, and only with concrete evidence of gang-related activity posing such a clear
and present threat; that prisoners have a fair opportunity to contest the evidence; and that
such decisions are subject to regular, meaningful review.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

48

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

THE STEP-DOWN PROCEDURE
The proposals include a new step-down program (SDP) for prisoners assigned to
indeterminate SHU housing based on STG validation. CDCR has described the SDP as an
“incentive based multi-step process” involving “structured activities and programming”,
aimed at preparing inmates for eventual release back to the general prison population or
Special Needs Yard (SNY). 120
The SDP consists of five steps, the first four of which would take place within the SHU, each
step lasting a minimum of 12 months. The SDP would replace the six-year inactive review,
allowing prisoners to work their way out of the SHU in four years, should they successfully
pass through the required steps. The proposals make clear that prisoners can only complete
the steps “providing they remain free of gang activity and demonstrate compliance with the
program requirements”. 121
Under Steps 1 and 2, prisoners will remain confined to their cells for 22 and a half hours a
day, with 10 hours out of cell exercise a week. The proposals state that recreation may
include the use of “isometric and exercise equipment as determined and deemed
appropriate”, otherwise there is no change to their physical conditions of confinement. All
meals would continue to be eaten inside the cell and access to personal possessions and
hobby-craft materials would remain limited. Prisoners undergoing Steps 1 and 2 of the SDP –
which is described by CDCR as an “observation phase” – will be required to undertake “incell studies designed to enhance life skills” such as anger management and other cognitive
skill based programming. The prisoner’s progress will be assessed by the institutional
classification committee (ICC) every six months, and, if judged to have completed one step
successfully after 12 months, will move to the next step.
Step 3 would involve some peer interaction of “mixed gang affiliations”, with program
components “to include both individual and group meetings that provide anger management,
parenting, academic and substance abuse programs, and other self help groups”. Group
meetings would be limited in size and prisoners would be held in individual “therapeutic
treatment modules”: individual cages about the size of a telephone kiosk. Otherwise, the
only change to conditions is an increase in canteen money (from 25% to 40% of what is
allowed to general population inmates), no significant increase in-cell possessions, (allowing
up to ten (non-educational) books or magazines and the addition of dominoes). The proposals
include no change to the amount of outdoor recreation and all meals would be eaten in the
cells as at present.
Step 4 would include some expanded programs, including some work and educational
programs within the unit, with individual and group therapeutic treatment, in modules, as
above “or unrestrained as determined by ICC”. The proposals would also allow “Yard
interaction with inmates of diverse affiliations” after six months of programming in Step 4.
Meals would also be consumed within the section with other SDP inmates.
Prisoners completing all four steps of the SHU SDP will be released into a maximum security
(level 1V) general population setting or a SNY for a 12 month observation period. If they
complete this phase “with no documented evidence of continued gang involvement” they will
have completed the program and may be transferred to any other facility consistent with their
classification score. These prisoners will remain on “monitored” status for the rest of their
sentence and could be sent back to the SHU at any time (via ICC review) if they commit a
serious disciplinary offence or demonstrate “new criminal gang behaviour”.
The opportunity for prisoners to earn their way out of the SHU through renouncing their gang
membership and “debriefing” would continue to exist as an alternative to SDP. The proposals
state that, at any stage of the SDP, the inmate can be asked to be put into the debriefing
program instead.
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

49

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

CONCERNS ABOUT CONTINUED ISOLATION DURING THE STEP-DOWN PROGRAM
Amnesty International welcomes in principle proposals to introduce a step-down program to
replace the present system where prisoners remain in the same harsh conditions for years on
end, with no structured incentives to change their behaviour. However, the organization is
deeply concerned that, under the new proposals, prisoners would remain confined to solitary
or double cells for a minimum of two years, with no change to their isolated conditions of
confinement. These concerns are compounded by the proposal that all male inmates
undergoing steps 1 and 2 of the SDP (apart from those excluded on grounds of serious
mental illness) will be housed in Pelican Bay SHU; thus some SHU inmates at present
housed in other facilities may see their conditions actually worsen, by being confined to
windowless cells in an even more isolated environment, with an exercise yard that offers no
view to the outside.
Given the negative effects that prolonged isolation can have on physical and psychological
health, it is hard to see how the in-cell “anger management” and cognitive programs offered
during the first two steps of the SDP can have a positive impact when conducted in such a
restrictive setting. It is also unclear how a prisoner’s progress can be measured in the
absence of any group interaction and with so little time spent outside the cell. While no
details have been provided of how the in-cell programs will be delivered, they are likely to be
via closed-circuit TV, given the high cost of delivering face-to-face programming in a SHU
setting. Even after two years of clear conduct, prisoners would still spend most of their time
confined to isolation cells in phase three, with the only inter-action with other inmates taking
place in individual cages (“therapy modules”).
The CDCR proposals state that “failure to complete program requirements and/or confirmed
criminal gang behaviours during any program step”, will require the offender to “repeat or
regress to a prior step as determined by ICC”. Prisoner advocates have expressed concern
that correctional staff and IGIs will still exercise considerable influence on who remains in
the SHU, particularly in the absence of positive opportunities to demonstrate good behaviour
as indicated above. The proposals state that the prisoner must be “free of gang activity” in
order to complete the program, and that staff will monitor and report any gang behaviour.
Some prisoners have expressed a fear that without clear behavioural-based criteria as to what
actually constitutes gang activity, they may still be held in the SHU indefinitely, without
posing a danger to others or to institutional security.
Some other states have introduced systems which enable high risk prisoners to participate in
meaningful programs and return safely to the general prison population within a far shorter
time frame than is proposed in California.
In Connecticut, prison gang members assessed as a security threat undergo a three-phase
program, where they can progress through all three phases and back to the general prison
population within a period of nine months. 122 Prisoners, who must renounce gang activity in
order to complete the program, are housed two per cell at all three phases and, after six
months (phase 3), have access to a dayroom and gymnasium as well as interactive programs
and counselling. Evaluations of the program, which has been running since 1994, have
reported it to be a success, with low recidivism rates (measured by return to gang activity)
among prisoners who have completed it. 123
From late 2007 to early 2009 Mississippi reduced its most secure segregated population by
80% following reforms to the criteria for assigning prisoners to the unit (Unit 32 at the state
prison at Parchman). Those who remained in Unit 32, who included STG leaders, were given
opportunities to move at an early stage from the “closed tier” (cellular isolation) section to an
“open tier” where they had group programs, access to sporting activities and congregate
dining, before moving out of the unit altogether. According to Mississippi Corrections
Department Deputy Commissioner Emmitt Sparkman,
“We were able to identify inmates who were a threat and those people remained in
segregation. But they participated in programs, we gave them more freedoms, and we saw a
50
Index: AMR 51/060/2012
Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

huge decrease in violence in that unit …. Once prisoners in Unit 32 saw the incentives they
could get, every week we saw inmates progress to the next level”. 124
Unit 32 was closed altogether in 2010, and use of long-term segregation has reportedly been
reduced throughout the state with no adverse effects on institutional safety.
An external review of administrative segregation in the Colorado prison system in 2011 found
a two-year average length of stay in isolation units to be too long. Consultants for the National
Institute of Corrections recommended a structured level system for prisoners classified as a
high security risk which would allow them to be returned to the general prison population
within nine months if compliant with the program, with specific rules and privileges at each
stage; the report criticized existing programs provided at the state’s “supermax” facility
(Colorado State Penitentiary) as being of “questionable value”, noting that almost all
programs and activities were provided by staff at the cell-side and there were no procedures
for reducing use of restraints and allowing group activities. 125
Colorado has since taken steps to reduce the numbers of prisoners in long-term isolation,
joining a growing number of other states who have reduced, or are in the process of reducing,
their “supermax” populations, including Illinois, Maine, Ohio and Washington.

EXISTING SHU PRISONERS
CDCR’s reform proposals include plans to review the cases of all existing SHU prisoners.
Amnesty International understood from a meeting with CDCR in November 2011, that the
review would decide which prisoners, under the revised criteria, no longer needed to be in the
SHU and that it could go ahead before the reforms were finalised. However, as far as the
organization is aware, as of August 2012, few, if any, prisoners had yet been released under
this process.
Prisoners who are retained in the SHU will be eligible to participate in the SDP. The strategy
document states that “offenders will normally begin the SDP in Step 1” (p. 27). However,
the proposals appear to give some discretion to the prison authorities on what step to place a
prisoner in the SDP. 126 Amnesty International wrote to CDCR in early July 2012 to seek
clarification of how existing prisoners would be dealt with under the proposed reforms.
Specifically, the organization sought clarification on whether prisoners who have already
spent several years in SHU confinement without a serious disciplinary record will be eligible
to move straight to steps 3 or 4 of the SDP, so that they can begin integrated activities right
away, rather than spending a minimum of two more years in isolation and a third year in
near-total isolation. Amnesty International also asked whether whether gang associates who
no longer fit the SHU criteria will be considered for immediate transfer to the general prison
population, and whether any such transfers have taken place. The organization regrets that it
had not received a response to its inquiry at the time of writing.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

51

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

16. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
“Torture…to torture people. There are no
rehabilitation programmes, no church, no
education, no supplies for artists. They say we
can’t have cell mates because it would be too
dangerous but that is not true. It’s not true when
they say that everyone held in the SHU is the
‘worst of the worst’. Many of the inmates have
been held in solitary confinement for more than
15 years, some for more than 20. Even for me
after being in solitary confinement for almost
seven years…that rush of loneliness still vibrates
through me…so try to imagine effect on their
minds”
Response from ex-prisoner who spent nearly seven years in Pelican Bay SHU, when asked what he thought was the objective for the
practise of long-term isolation

In presenting the findings of this report, Amnesty International recognizes that the authorities
have an obligation to ensure the safety of all inmates and that it may be necessary to
segregate prisoners at times for disciplinary or security reasons. However, all measures must
be consistent with states’ obligation under international human rights law and standards to
treat all prisoners humanely, and refrain from torture or other ill-treatment. As described
above, Amnesty International considers that the conditions of isolation and other deprivations
imposed on prisoners in California’s SHU units breach international standards on humane
treatment, and that prolonged or indefinite isolation, and the severe social and environmental
deprivation existing in Pelican Bay SHU in particular, constitutes cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment in violation of international law.
In line with international human rights law and standards, Amnesty International urges that
solitary confinement, whether for disciplinary or administrative purposes, is used only as a
last resort, for the minimum period possible. All prisoners in segregated security housing
should have access to adequate out of cell time and exercise, and (if held for other than brief
periods in disciplinary segregation) access to meaningful rehabilitation programs both in
terms of their right to humane treatment and to aid prisoners’ eventual return to society.
While the reforms currently under consideration contain some improvements to the present
Index: AMR 51/060/2012

52

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

system, by for example, excluding prisoners from an automatic SHU assignment based solely
on validation as an STG “associate”, they do not go far enough. There are continuing
concerns about both the fairness of the procedures for assigning prisoners to what could still
be indefinite SHU terms, and about the length of time in which prisoners will remain in
solitary confinement during the step down process.
In light of these concerns and the findings of its report, Amnesty International makes the
following recommendations to the California authorities.

1. Recommendations for assignment to the SHU

Ensure that only prisoners who are a severe, continuing threat, whose behaviour cannot
be managed in a less restrictive setting, are held in the SHU.

The criteria for SHU assignment for STG members should be based on concrete evidence
of illegal, gang-related activity rather than membership or association alone, with prisoners
given a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence used to validate such assignments.

All prisoners assigned to the SHU as a “gang associate” or who have already spent years
in indeterminate SHU assignments should be immediately removed from isolation. Prisoners
should be transferred to the general prison population where possible, or to a transitional
unit, depending on their individual circumstances.

Placements in the SHU should be made only after an impartial hearing at which the
prisoner has fair representation and a meaningful opportunity to contest the assignment and
the right to appeal. The procedural protections should include those recommended in ABA
standards, such as a reasonable opportunity for prisoners to present witnesses. Prisoners
should be provided with regular, meaningful review of their SHU assignment through a
similar impartial proceeding. Specific factual reasons should be provided for every decision
to assign or retain someone in the SHU, with individualised guidance provided for what a
prisoner needs to do to be released from the SHU.

2. Recommendations on conditions in SHU housing

All prisoners in segregated housing should be held in humane conditions with adequate
access to outdoor exercise and natural light and more out of cell time.

If prisoners continue to be housed in Pelican Bay SHU, the conditions should be
urgently modified to improve the living environment so that prisoners even in the most
restrictive custody setting have better facilities for outdoor exercise, access to natural light
and more human contact.

Amnesty International recommends that CDCR introduce measures that allow some
group interaction for prisoners at all stages of SHU confinement, both to benefit their mental
health and wellbeing and to provide incentives and allow their behaviour to be measured.
This could include allowing prisoners to exercise in small groups in a secure outdoor setting
and/or have access to a day-room.

The step down program should be modified to provide prisoners with an opportunity to
work their way out of the SHU to the general population in months rather than the four years
currently proposed.



Opportunities should be provided for all prisoners in SHU housing to have access to
meaningful programs, including educational, recreational and rehabilitation programs.




Contact with family members should be encouraged, by providing adequate opportunities
for visitation and by allowing all SHU prisoners to make regular phone calls to their families.
Amnesty International recommends that prisoners who are disciplinary free be allowed two
non-legal phone calls a month, as is permitted in high security units in the federal system.
The authorities should extend the visiting hours for prisoners held in Pelican Bay SHU, given

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

53

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

the remote location of this facility. The authorities should also consider transferring prisoners
who have spent several years in Pelican Bay SHU to prisons nearer to home.
Ensure adequate mental health monitoring of all SHU prisoners, including opportunities
for prisoners to consult with mental health care professionals in private. Prisoners suffering
from mental health problems should not be confined to cells for prolonged periods but should
receive treatment in a therapeutic setting.



All SHU prisoners should have access to adequate health care; given the isolated
environment, there should be systems to ensure regular, independent review of health care
provision in SHU facilities.




Prisoners who have developed serious health care problems as a result of their SHU
confinement (whether physical or mental) should be removed to an appropriate facility where
their health care needs can be met.

The use of Lexan (plastic) covered cells should be discontinued, or used only as a shortterm emergency measure, given that they serve to further isolate prisoners already confined
to cells and may worsen conditions inside the cell. Prisoners who engage in disturbed
behaviour, such as spitting or throwing bodily waste, should receive treatment for their
behaviour in a more therapeutic setting.

Female SHU prisoners should at all times be attended and supervised by female staff
and at no time should any areas of the SHU be attended by male staff alone. Male staff
should be not be required or permitted to carry out duties or enter locations in the SHU
where they can observe women in the shower or at other times when they are undressed.

3. Conditions in administrative segregation units (ASUs)

Given the severe effects of isolation in ASUs as well as SHUs, and statistics showing a
higher risk of suicide among inmates in ASUs than the prison general population, conditions
in ASU’s should be improved and all prisoners subjected to regular, careful monitoring of
their mental health. Prisoners showing signs of mental illness or psychological distress while
in segregation units should be immediately removed from extreme isolation. All prisoners
held in ASU cells for longer than a few days should have access to occupational materials
and contact with the outside world through TV and/or radio to reduce the effects of extreme
isolation and sensory deprivation.

The state Legislature and Governor should ensure that all prisoners, including those in
the SHU, have access to effective rehabilitation programs and that such programs are
adequately funded.

The state Legislature should ensure through regular monitoring and oversight that all
prisoners in the state correctional system are held in conditions that conform to international
standards.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

54

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

ENDNOTES
1

The organization spent a day in each prison and spoke to staff and prisoners, interviewing 11 prisoners.

Although the prison authorities selected the prisoners who agreed to be interviewed, and the interviews
took place in the presence of prison staff, they included prisoners who had spent many years in the SHU
and prisoners undergoing debriefing as well as those who had declined to debrief, as requested by
Amnesty International. The delegates also spoke randomly to prisoners at the cell doors as it toured units
in the SHUs at Corcoran and Pelican Bay. Amnesty International’s delegates were Roy King, Emeritus
Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Wales and Honorary Senior Research Fellow,
Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge and Angela Wright and Tessa Murphy of the
International Secretariat of Amnesty International in London, UK.
2

“Parole, Snitch, or Die: California’s Supermax Prisons & Prisoners, 1987-2007, by Keramet Reiter,

Institution for the Study of Social Change, UC Berkeley, 7 July 2010. CDCR statistics on the racial
makeup of the institutional population in 2007 were 39.8% Hispanic, 28.9% Black and 25.8% White.
CDCR uses “Hispanic” as a race category although the US Census uses “Hispanic” as an ethnicity
category.
3

In California, as in other states, gangs, including prison gangs, are largely divided along racial/ethnic

lines. The prison gangs considered to be the most serious, according to CDCR’s threat criteria, are the
Mexican Mafia, Nuestra Familia and the Texas Syndicate (of Hispanic or Mexican American or Latino
immigrant origin), Northern Structure (associated with Nuestra Familia but with a mixed racial make-up);
the Aryan Brotherhood and its affiliate the Nazi Low Riders (white supremacists), and the Black Guerilla
Family.
4

No exact figures are available as national studies have found it difficult to compare numbers across

states due to different definitions by states of what constitutes “supermax” housing and with shifting
practices due to court decisions. However, a survey by the Urban Institute found that, as of 2004, 44
states had “supermax” facilities housing some 25,000 inmates (A Critical Look at Supermax Prisons,
Daniel P. Mears, Corrections Compendium, 2005). A census of state and federal prisons in 2005
conducted by the US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found there were 81,622
prisoners held in some form of “restricted housing” at that time.
5

In the 19th century prisoners were often held in total isolation as a form of penitence, but the practice

was abandoned after concern at the inhumane effects of such treatment. The first modern supermax
prison was the federal prison at Marion, Illinois, where prisoners were placed in “lockdown” and confined
to cells following the murder of two prison guards in 1983; the prison continued to hold prisoners in 23
hour cellular confinement for the next 23 years but is no longer an isolation facility. It has been replaced
in the federal system by the federal prison ADX in Florence, Colorado, where some 500 prisoners are
held in long-term isolation.
6

See King, Roy D. The rise and rise of supermax: an American solution in search of a problem,

Punishment and Society, 1 (2) 163-186, 1999. King’s research found that California had 2,942 beds
out of a total of 19,630 in 34 states in the mid 1990s.
7

These included California’s “three strikes law” which triggers a sentence of 25 years to life for any

offender with two prior felony convictions, including for non-violent offences.
8

The Determinate Sentencing Act, 1976.

9

One of the first was the Special Management Unit (SMU) in Arizona, which opened in 1987 and on

which Pelican Bay was modelled (see Cruel Isolation, Amnesty International’s concerns about conditions
in Arizona Maximum Security Prisons, AI Index: AMR 51/023/2012.)
10

A 1999 National Institute of Corrections report evaluating of the effects of supermax in reducing

violence found “There exists little or no hard data comparing such perceived impacts on entire systems
versus the fiscal cost to gain such results” (Chase Riveland, Supermax Prisons: Overview and General
Considerations, p. 2.) A later study of corrections systems in Arizona, Illinois and Minnesota found no
evidence that segregating prisoners reduced overall levels of inmate on inmate violence and had mixed

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

55

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

results on whether supermax confinement increased staff safety (Chad S. Briggs et al, “The Effects of
Supermax Security Prisons on Aggregate Levels of Institutional Violence”, Criminology 41 (2003), 134176.)
11

Reiter Keramet, Parole, Snitch or Die, supra at note 2, p. 43.

12

They include Mississippi, where incidents of violence and use of force dropped by 70% after the state

cut its supermax population of more than 1,000 prisoners and introduced group activities and programs
for the remaining inmates, leading senior corrections officials to support eventual closure of the unit in
2010. Ohio reduced its supermax population by 89% with no increase in violence.
13

The decision followed extensive litigation on the state’s failure to provide adequate medical and

mental health care brought in two lawsuits, Coleman v Brown, filed in 1990, and Plata v Brown, filed in
2001.
14

AP, Don Thompson, 14 June 2012.

15

Although California ranks 18th in the USA in the rate at which it incarcerates its population, it still

incarcerates at a rate higher than most other countries. The current incarceration rate of sentenced
prisoners in California state prisons is 595 per 100,000 population (Public Policy Institute of California,
April 2012). By comparison, the incarceration rate in 2008 (including pre-sentenced inmates) in
England and Wales was around 153/100,000, France, 96/100,000 and Germany 89/100,000), World
Prison List, International Centre for Prison Studies, Kings College, London, UK. In England and Wales,
with a population of 56 million, compared to California’s 38 million, the current prison population is
82,000 prisoners, the highest per capita in Western Europe.
16

The 2012-13 Budget, Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment, LAO report, 23 February 2012.

17

The concern generated by the hunger strike led to a hearing on solitary confinement by the Public

Safety Committee of the California State Assembly on 23 August 2012 (organized by the chair of the
Public Safety Committee Tom Ammiano), at which prisoners’ relatives, former SHU prisoners, advocates,
penal reformers, representatives of religious organizations and CDCR testified.
18

See public statement 4 October 2011: Amnesty International Calls for Urgent Reforms to California

security housing units as the prison hunger strike resumes
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/085/2011/en/
19

Human Rights Committee General Comment 21; similar principles are affirmed under the UN

Standard Minimum Rules (Article 57) and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (Principle
5).
20

Interim Report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment, 5 August 2011, United Nations General Assembly A/66/268/, para 46
(herafter referred to as the “Interim Report of the SR).
21

Human Rights Committee General Comment 20 on Article 7 of the ICCPR.

22

Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the Second and Third U.S. Reports to

the Committee 2006, para 36 (CCPR/C/SR.2395, 27 July 2006).
23

Ibid, para 32.

24

Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture on the second report of the USA,

para 36, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 18 May 2006.
25

The European Prison Rules were adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in

January 2006, and approved by all 47 member states of the Council of Europe for guidance in
legislation, policies and practice of the countries concerned.
26

The case law looks at the individual circumstances of each case and cases may not be totally

analagous in every respect to cases elsewhere; however, for example, in Ramirez Sanchez v France,
Application No. 59450/00, the European Court of Human Rights found that solitary confinement, even if
only partial, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights
has held that prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

56

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

treatment, and that isolation in a small cell without ventilation or natural light together with restriction of
visiting rights constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Loayza-Tamayo v Peru,
IACHR, Series C, No.33, para 58 (1997).
27

Interim Report of the SR, supra at note 21.

28

Madrid v Gomez, 889 F. Supp.1146 (N.D. Cal 1995)

29

Madrid v Gomez, at p. 59

30

Prisoners must establish they are deprived the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”,

(Wilson v Seiter, 501 U.S. at 298 (1991). In order to establish that a deprivation violates the Eighth
Amendment, a claim must not only satisfy the objective test of a sufficiently serious deprivation, but also
a subjective test in which it must be shown that the authorities were aware of, and showed “deliberately
indifference” to the risk of harm posed by the conditions (Wilson v Seiter, at 303); the prison authorities
must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health and safety (Farmer v Brennan, 511 U.S.
at 837 (1994);
31

e.g. Farmer v Brennan, 511 U.S. at 825,831

32

A further obstacle to prisoners bringing claims on grounds of mental injury is the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA) passed by Congress in 1995 which provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be
brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional
injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. section 1997 e
(e).
33

Initial report of the USA to the Human Rights Committee, 24/08/94. CCPR/C/81/Add.4., paras 176

and 177.
34

Under treaty-based and customary rules of international treaty law, states may not enter reservations

which are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty (Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, adopted 22 May 1969, entered into force 23 May 1980).
35

The Human Rights Committee has stated it is “particularly concerned at reservations to article 6,

paragraph 5, and article 7 of the Covenant, which it believes to be incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Covenant” (Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: United States of
America, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.50, A/50/40 (1995, para 279). The CAT has expressed concern
about “The reservation lodged to article 16, in violation of the Convention, the effect of which is to limit
the application of the Convention”, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against
Torture: United States of America, 15,05,2000. (A/55/44, para179 (b)).
36

Confronting Confinement, report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, June

2006. The Commission was established by the Vera Institute of Justice in 2005 and conducted a yearlong inquiry which included public hearings in four major cities. It was co-chaired by former US Attorney
General Nicholas B. Katzenbach and the Hon John Gibbons, former Chief Judge of the US Court of
Appeal for the Third Circuit. Its 20 members included prison administrators, prisoner-rights advocates,
religious representatives and members of both main political parties.
http://www.vera.org/content/confronting-confinement
37

Confronting Confinement, pages 53-61

38

Ibid, at p. 57

39

ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Treatment of Prisoners, approved by the ABA House of Delegates,

February 2010. ABA standards are not binding but are “grounded in legal and constitutional principles”
and have “guided the development of law and practice in the American criminal justice system”
(Statement submitted to Hearing before Senate Judiciary Committee, 19 June 2012).
40

Arizona SMU, which opened in 1986, was the first “purpose-built” “supermax” facility in the USA.

41

Amnesty International, Conditions for Death Row Prisoners in H-Unit, Oklahoma State Penitentiary,

Roy King, (AI Index: AMR 51/35/94), May 1994 p. 16; Cruel Isolation, Amnesty International’s
Concerns about Conditions in Arizona Maximum Security Prisons (AI Index AMR 51/023/2012), April
2012, p 4.

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

57

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

42

CDCR Operations Manual states that all wardens in the division of adult facilities “shall have systems

in place to ensure that ACA standards have been reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated into local
operations” (Operations Manual Article 26, 14090.4). CDCR has also reported that it is working towards
seeking ACA accreditation in designated California facilities (CDCR Division of Adult Institutions
Strategic Initiatives 2011-2012; the designated facilities were not named in this document).
43

Amnesty International has described how holding two prisoners for 22 or more hours a day in a small

cell in enclosed, isolated environment can cause particular stresses on prisoners and that inappropriate
double-celling can be dangerous, leading to attacks by inmates on cell-mates (USA: Conditions for death
row prisons in H-Unit, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 1994 (AMR 51/34/94). The Madrid v Gomez ruling
also noted with concern lack of clear criteria for double-celling inmates in Pelican Bay SHU and cases
where prisoners had been victims of in-cell assaults by their cell-mate, Madrid ruling , 43-44: two-thirds
of the SHU population were double-celled at that time.
44

Madrid v Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, p. 38

45

Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of

Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution
663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.
46

Interim Report of the SR, supra at note 21, p. 14

47

Standards for Adult Correctional Facilities, 4th Edition (4-4147-148, 4-4140). The ACA standards

appear to allow for a natural light source within 20 feet of a cell rather than directly into the cell; as
Amnesty International has noted elsewhere, this standard may have been acceptable for old-style
facilities with open barred-cells but is not in the organization’s view an adequate standard for a modern
facility, particularly with solid cell doors.
48

A letter to the Office of the Receiver (appointed by a federal court to supervise medical care in

California prisons) from Carol Strickman, staff attorney at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children,
dated 2 September 2011, outlining a range of concerns about the health of SHU prisoners, states that
the ventilation system at Pelican Bay is inadequate, with recycled air entering the cells “full of dust and
other particles, causing complainants to suffer respiratory complications in their breathing”.
49

Terry A. Kupers, M.D. M.S.P, a clinical psychiatrist with expertise in mental health issues relating to

prisoners, testified in an Arizona case that Lexan made the cell “significantly hotter and more humid
than it would otherwise be”, and that it also “greatly intensifies the isolation”. He spent several minutes
inside an empty Lexan cell and noted that “While one can hear a person speaking through the lexan, the
voice is more muffled than when one speaks through the grid without a lexan cover.” (extract from
testimony of Kupers in the case of Arizona death row inmate Robert Comer, 2002). Similar testimony
has been given in a case in Mississippi.
50

Amnesty International correspondence with clinical psychiatrist Terry Kupers (see note 47 supra).

Kupers, explained how such behaviour can result from mounting anger in reaction to the harsh isolative
conditions in such units, with fewer appropriate means for the prisoner to express him or herself ; see
also Kupers, Terry A, How to Create Madness in Prison, David Jones, Ed; Humane Prisons. Oxford:
Radcliffe Publishing, 2006.
51

Reiter, Keramet, Parole, Snitch or Die, supra at note 2, p. 22.

52

CDCR Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy, page 33.

53

Madrid v Gomez, p. 38

54

Undated memorandum regarding Security Housing Unit Concerns issued by CDCR in mid-2011 to the

wardens of Corcoran, Pelican Bay and other state prisons.
55

One example criticized by Amnesty International for failing to ensure humane conditions is H-Unit in

Oklahoma State Penitentiary, an isolation unit which was planned and designed by an informal
committee of Department of Corrections personnel as a “non-contact” facility (Amnesty International,
Conditions for Death Row Prisoners in H-Unit, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, USA, by Professor Roy King,
AI Index: AMR 51/35/94).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

58

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

56

Parole, Snitch and Die, supra at note 2, p. 16

57

Principles 19 and 20 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of

Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 43/173, 9 December 1988.
58

According to a class action lawsuit filed in May 2012 on behalf of prisoners in Pelican Bay SHU, while

prisoners who can afford them are allowed to take correspondence courses, “there has been no
consistent access to proctors for exams that would allow prisoners to get credit for their coursework”
(Ruiz v Brown, Case No: 4:-cv-05796-CW, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, at page 14)
59

Human Rights Committee General Comment 21, 1992

60

Findings of studies published in numerous articles, (e.g. Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary

Confinement” Wash U. J.L and Policy (2006)) and in court rulings and testimony. See generally Peter
Scharff Smith, The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the
Literature, 34 Crime and Just. 441 (2006).
61

Madrid v Gomez, p. 60

62

Madrid v Gomez, pages 39-42. Dr Stuart Grassian is a Board Certified psychiatrist on the faculty of

Harvard Medical School. His reports, based on studies of solitary confinement, include Grassian. S.,
Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454
(1983) and Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash U. Journal of Law and Policy, Vol:
22:325 (2006).
63

Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, Crime &

Delinquency, 49, 124-156 (2003), and in Statement to the California Assembly Committee on Public
Safety, Hearing on SHU Conditions in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 23
August 2011.
64

A class action lawsuit filed in May 2012 on behalf of prisoners who had spent between 11 and 22

years in Pelican Bay SHU (Ruiz v Brown, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint). The complaint describes inter alia the ongoing physical and mental effects of prisoners’
prolonged isolation, including severe anxiety, headaches, chronic fatigue, insomnia, panic attacks,
hallucinations, concentration and memory loss, numbness, pages 27-30.
65

Ruiz v Brown, pages 28-30.

66

Statement to the California Assembly, supra at note 65.

67

Letter from Carol Strickman, staff attorney at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, to the Office

of the Receiver, 2 September 2011. The Receiver is a medical officer appointed by a federal court in
2005 to oversee reform of health care provision in California prisons, under litigation charging that the
state had failed to provide adequate health care to inmates (Plata v Brown).
68

Wilkerson et al v Stalder et al, Civil Action No 00-303, US District Court, M.D. La, Report and

Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Dalby, 11 August 2007.
69

1997 report by three independent psychiatrists who examined prisoners held in Special Security

Units. An official inquiry by the UK prison service recommended that prisoners held in the unit should
be retained there for as short a period as possible and more provision should be made for mental
stimulation and physical exercise and prisoners should have open visits with members of their immediate
family. The findings are described in Amnesty International report, UK Special Security Units – Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, 1997 (AI Index: EUR 45/06/97)
70

E.g. White T. Schimmel D, Frickey R: A comprehensive analysis of suicide in federal prisons: a fifteen

year review. Correctional Health Care 9:321-23, 2002; Confronting Confinement, the 2006 report of the
Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons (op cit at note [ADD] cites a national study
finding two-thirds of suicides in US jails took place in a control unit (Hayes and Rowan, 1988). Data
from various US states in recent years, including Oregon and Ohio, have shown suicide rates occurred
disproportionately in segregation units.
71

The California prison suicide rate for 2005-2010 averaged 21.7 per 100,000 prison population

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

59

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

compared to the national average in US state prisons for 2005-2007 of 16.6/100,000 (latest figures
provided by the US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.
72

Source: annual reports prepared by Dr Raymond F. Patterson, M.D., expert adviser to the Special

Master, and reports of the Special Master to the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The reports were submitted as part of the Special Master’s continuing review of CDCR’s compliance with
court-ordered remedies in the Coleman v Brown, lawsuit, case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JKM P (E.D.
Cal.). The annual suicide numbers were 43 (2006); 34 (2007); 37 (2008); 25 (2009), 35 (2010).
73

In 2007, following concern by the Special Master about the rising number of suicides in

administrative segregation units, CDCR instructed all institutions to assess their logistical abilities to
provide in-cell radios and TVs to inmates in such units for non-disciplinary reasons. Some have since
been converted to allow such equipment in order to reduce extreme conditions of isolation. However,
during Amnesty International’s visit to Pelican Bay in November 2011, it noted that a “stand-alone”
ASU facility in Pelican Bay, which was built just a few years ago, still had no outlets for radio or TV.
74

Letter to Amnesty International from CDCR, 27 March 2012.

75

Reports to the Special Master on suicides in CDCR facilities by Dr Raymond F. Patterson, M.D, for

Calendar Years 2006, 2007, 2008/9 (combined report) and 2010.
76

Special Master’s Report, filed 9 November 2011, Coleman v Brown (see note 68, supra).

77

Parole, Snitch or Die, supra at note 2, at p. 49-50.

78

2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report. The study found that prisoners who had spent

some time in the SHU during their incarceration and were released on parole during Financial Year
2006/7 had a 5% higher recidivism rate (measured by returns to prison) than other inmates released
during the same period. This was aggregate data and did not include a breakdown of the percentage
released directly to the street from the SHU or other factors. However, adding SHU releases to the
populations of offenders in CDCR analysis for lawmakers and other decision-makers is a welcome
development.
79

Standards on medical services are contained under 22-23 of the SMR. The Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment also provide that medical care
and treatment “shall be provided whenever necessary” and that “This care and treatment shall be
provided free of charge”. (Principle 24).
80

A Receiver is an impartial agent appointed by a court for a period of time to take control of assets

which are the subject of litigation, and to report to the court. The Receiver appointed pursuant to the
Plata v Brown litigation is responsible for delivering health care in all 33 adult correctional institutions
and to bring the level of medical care to a standard which no longer violates the US Constitution, after
which the court will return control of prison medical care to the State.
81

From report of the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Providing Constitutional and Cost-

Effective Inmate Medical Care, April 2012. Under US law, prison officials must provide adequate care
for prisoners’ “serious medical needs” and deliberate failure to do so (“deliberate indifference”) violates
the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
82

Ruiz v Brown, supra, note 66, p. 16

83

Ibid, pages 16,17.

84

LAO report, April 2012, see note 87, above, p. 15

85

Ibid, page 21.

86

Prisoners with serious mental illness can be held in other SHU facilities and treated under the

Correctional Clinical Case Management System or, if more intervention is required, referred to a prison
Enhanced Outpatient Program or another mental health facility.
87

Mental Health Services Delivery System, Chapter 9: Psychiatric Services Unit, 2009 Revision.

88

2008 NCCHC Standard for Health Services for Jails and Prisons. Standard E-09 (prison:essential).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

60

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

89

CDCR Strategic Plan 2010-2015.

90

Ruiz v Brown, supra at note 66, p 17

91

Ibid

92

Mental Health Services Delivery System, Chapter 8, Security Housing Unit, 12-8-13, 2009 Revision.

93

Prisoners may be assigned to ASUs for various reasons, including for disciplinary offences or pending

investigations, for their own protection, or while waiting a placement in the SHU. In general prisoners
spend less time in ASU than in the SHU, although in some cases they can be held there for months, or
even longer.
94

Based on figures provided to Amnesty International by CDCR in July 2012

95

http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/2010/res%202010-16.pdf

96

USA: The Findings of a Visit to Valley State Prison for Women, California, AI Index: AMR

51/053/1999 http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/053/1999
97
98

See, for example, Women in Custody, http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdf/custodyissues.pdf
One listed offence is “throwing a caustic substance on a non-inmate”, meriting a SHU term of two to

six months or even longer if a more serious charge results. Sexual offences such as “indecent exposure”,
also listed as an offence carrying a SHU term of three to nine months, may also be indicative of mental
health problems.
99

Under California regulations an inmate will be assigned an employee to assist in the investigation

when required due to the complexity or seriousness of the case or where it is unlikely the charged inmate
can collect and present the necessary evidence due to restricted housing circumstances or where
determined to be necessary for a fair hearing. Prisoners are not entitled to legal representation at internal
disciplinary hearings but may be assigned a staff assistant at the hearing. A finding of guilt in a
disciplinary hearing is based on the preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond all doubt as
required in a court of law.
100

The ICC consists of prison staff members, chaired by the Warden or Deputy Warden or designee and

is an administrative procedure, not a disciplinary hearing.
101

An inmate may be retained in the SHU after serving a fixed term if his or her release would “severely

endanger the lives or inmates or staff, the security of the institution, or the integrity of an investigation
into suspected criminal activity or serious misconduct” (Title 15, Section 3341.5, 8B).
102

This was the figure of gang-related SHU inmates given to Amnesty International during a meeting

with CDCR in November 2011 (the largest number housed in Pelican Bay, others in Corcoran, Tehachapi
and a small unit in California State Prison, Sacramento.
103

Interim report of the SR, supra at note 21, paras 89, 94-98.

104

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, prisoners must first exhaust administrative remedies

before bringing federal civil rights claims before the courts and the process can be protracted. In
practice, individual claims against prisoners’ security classifications or prison housing assignments,
whether in the state or federal courts, are rarely successful. As noted under Section 4 of this report, the
US courts have taken a restrictive view of what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in terms of
prison conditions and prisoners have to prove they are deprived of basic essentials of life, with knowledge
and deliberate indifference by prison officials to a substantial risk of harm, a high barrier to surmount.
105

Testimony to California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee hearing on 23 August 2011.

106

Some prisoners have spent longer in solitary confinement as they were placed in SHU housing before

Pelican Bay opened; a class action lawsuit filed by the Centre for Constitutional Rights and others in May
2012 cites the case of one prisoner who had been in solitary confinement since 1984:28 years, and
others who had spent 27 and 26 years in solitary, all based on alleged gang associations (Ruiz v Brown,
supra at note 66, p.9).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

61

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

107

Charles Carbone, an attorney specialising in prisoner rights, in his testimony to a California Assembly

hearing on SHU confinement in August 2011, reported that there were hundreds of prisoners in the SHU
based on evidence that is “completely and utterly confidential” (from transcript of hearing on 23 August
2011). According to the Ruiz v Brown lawsuit CDCR continue to rely on “laundry lists” and on
informants who identify no specific gang activity to retain prisoners in the SHU under the six-year
inactive review, despite an agreement under the settlement of a 2004 lawsuit (Castillo v Almeida) that a
confidential source must identify specific gang activity or conduct before such information can be
considered as a source item (Ruiz v Brown, at pages 25, 26).
108

Griffen v Gomez, Case No. C 98-21038 JW.

109

The courts have ruled that prisoners have a protected liberty interest in avoiding being held in

conditions which constitute an “atypical and significant hardship” in relation to the “ordinary incidents”
of prison life (Sander v O’Connor), and thus are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution in decisions to place or retain them in such conditions.
The courts have held that indefinite confinement to a supermax facility constitutes an “atypical”
hardship under this standard.
110

In its key ruling in Wilkinson v Austin, 545, U.S. 2009 (2005) (No.04-495), the US Supreme Court

held that indefinite confinement in Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), the state’s supermax facility,
constituted “an atypical hardship” and inmates were thus entitled to some due process protection in
decisions to transfer them to, and retain them in, the facility. The court held that Ohio’s informal, nonadversarial procedures for placement in the facility were adequate to safeguard the due process
requirement under the Constitution. The ruling did not prescribe the procedures all states must used in
assigning inmates to supermax facilities but indicated the minimal standard adequate to meet the due
process requirement in such cases.
111

Hewitt v Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n.9 (1983)

112

For example, in Wilkinson v Austin, (supra at note 119) the Supreme Court upheld procedures that

provide for a review of supermax placement after 30 days and thereafter annually; there was no need
under Ohio’s procedures to provide a detailed statement of the reasons for the assignment or any clear
notice of what conduct is necessary for a prisoner to be removed from isolation. In some systems,
including the federal system, the initial reasons for placement may be grounds for continuing segregation
and this has been upheld by the courts.
113

See, for example, testimony to the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee hearing on 23

August 2011, including testimony of Charles Carbone, an attorney specialising in prisoner rights. During
a meeting with CDCR at its headquarters in November 2011, Amnesty International’s delegates were
informed that the OCS had rejected only two of the IGI validation recommendations in the past 18
months, although no official statistics were available.
114

However, unlike a hearing on a serious disciplinary charge, the indeterminate SHU review hearings do

not provide the prisoner with the right to a staff employee to assist in the investigation of any challenge
to the assignment the inmate may wish to put forward, nor does the prisoner have the right to call any
witnesses (see Prison Law Office, Gang Validation and Debriefing, July 2012).
115

Ruiz v Brown, supra at note 66,, at p. 20. As the lawsuit also states, the only review at which the

classification committee will review whether the prisoner should be released from the SHU occurs once
every six years, at the six year “inactive” review.
116

The Complaint in Ruiz v Brown alleges that “an unwritten policy prevents any prisoner held in the

SHU from being granted parole”, citing the cases of four prisoners serving indeterminate SHU terms who
are eligible for parole “but have been informed by the parole boards that they will never attain parole so
long as they are housed in the SHU (Ruiz v Brown, p. 18).
117

Letter to California state governor Jerry Brown, 2 July 2011, from Staughton and Alice Lynd,

attorneys who represented the class of prisoners that were the subject of the lawsuit giving rise to the
Wilkinson v Austin ruling.
118

STG Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy document, 1 March 2012, at page 36

(hereafter referred to as STG Management document, 1 March 2012).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

62

Amnesty International September 2012

USA: THE EDGE OF ENDURANCE
PRISON CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA’S SECURITY HOUSING UNITS

119

A committee of prisoner and human rights advocates and others which was set up to mediate between

prisoners and CDCR during the hunger strike and has continued with this role in relation to the proposed
reforms.
120

SNYs are protective custody units for prisoners who have dropped out of gangs and for other prisoners

considered vulnerable, such as sex offenders.
121

Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy, p. 36

122

The program consists of a four month initial review period after which the prisoner may enter the

active phases of the program, with structured activities and possibly work in the unit (phase II, lasting a
minimum of 90 days and phase III, lasting a minimum of 60 days).
123

See Connecticut Department of Corrections website, report, Recidivism, 23 February 2012, stating

that more than 5,000 prisoners have been involved in the gang management program, with a recidivism
rate (return to gang activity) of approximately 8%. See also “Connecticut Program Turns Gang Members
Around”, www.corrections.com/news/article/11234, 2003.
124

Emmitt Sparkman on reducing the use of segregation in prisons, posted on website of Vera Institute

of Justice, 31 October 2011. Reforms to Unit 32 were initiated through lawsuits filed by the National
Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and eventually implemented in full collaboration
with Mississippi’s Department of Corrections Commissioner Christopher Epps and Deputy Commissioner
Sparkman.
125

Colorado Department of Corrections Administrative Segregation and Classification Review, prepared

by James Austin, Ph.D. and Emmitt Sparkman, published by the National Institute of Corrections,
Washington, DC, October 2011 (pages 5, 18, 19).
126

The Security Threat Group strategy document, cited above states that “newly validated members”

shall be placed in Step 1 of the SDP; for STG-1 Associates discovered to have been involved in serious
disciplinary behaviour “Placement into a specific step of the SDP will be determined by ICC dependent
upon the severity and recency of the behaviour” (p. 36). Elsewhere, the document states that, at the
classification review hearing, consideration will be given to “initial placement in the appropriate step of
the SDP” (p. 11).

Index: AMR 51/060/2012

63

Amnesty International September 2012

WHETHER IN A HIGH-PROFILE CONFLICT
OR A FORGOTTEN CORNER OF THE
GLOBE, AMneStY InternAtIonAL
CAMPAIGNS FOR jUSTICE, FREEDOM
AND DIGNITY FOR ALL AND SEEKS TO
GALVANIZE PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BUILD
A BETTER WORLD
WhAt cAn YoU do?
Activists around the world have shown that it is possible to resist
the dangerous forces that are undermining human rights. Be part
of this movement. Combat those who peddle fear and hate.
 Join Amnesty International and become part of a worldwide
movement campaigning for an end to human rights violations.
Help us make a difference.
 Make a donation to support Amnesty International’s work.

together we can make our voices heard.
I am interested in receiving further information on becoming a member of Amnesty
International
name
address
country
email

I wish to make a donation to Amnesty International (donations will be taken in UK£, US$ or €)

please debit my

Visa

Mastercard

number

I WAnt
to heLP

expiry date
signature
Please return this form to the Amnesty International office in your country.
For Amnesty International offices worldwide: www.amnesty.org/en/worldwide-sites
If there is not an Amnesty International office in your country, please return this form to:
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, Peter Benenson House,
1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, United Kingdom

amnesty.org

amount

USA: the edge of endUrAnce

PrISon condItIonS In cALIfornIA’S SecUrItY
hoUSIng UnItS
hundreds of prisoners have been confined in california’s high-security
segregation units (Security housing Units, ShUs) for 10 or more years –
in some cases for decades – in conditions of severe isolation and
reduced sensory stimulation.
this report describes Amnesty International’s concerns about these
conditions and includes findings of a research visit to three ShU units
in november 2011. It also examines recent proposals put forward by
the california department of corrections and rehabilitation to reform the
method for assigning prisoners to the units and to provide a route out of
ShUs through a protracted four-step process lasting at least four years.

amnesty.org
Index: AMR 51/060/2012
September 2012