California solitary confinement laws prohibit indefinite isolation in state prisons, require that any placement in restricted housing be tied to specific serious misconduct rather than someone’s status or associations, and guarantee a hearing with written notice before a disciplinary placement. These rules come from a mix of state regulations that became permanent in July 2024, a federal court settlement in Ashker v. Governor, and constitutional protections under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.1California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Notice of Approval of Certificate of Compliance – Restricted Housing Units They apply to state prisons run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. County jails operate under far fewer restrictions.
What California Calls Solitary Confinement
CDCR does not use the phrase “solitary confinement.” In November 2023, emergency regulations collapsed the old mix of Security Housing Units, Administrative Segregation, and Psychiatric Services Units into a single umbrella called the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU).2California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action – Restricted Housing Units There are now three categories: a General Population RHU for people without mental health needs who require restricted placement, a CCCMS RHU for people with diagnosed psychiatric disorders who do not need inpatient treatment, and an Enhanced Outpatient Program RHU for the highest mental health tier within restricted housing.3California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Restricted Housing
The relabeling matters because it signals that restricted housing is supposed to be temporary and behavior-driven, not a long-term status assignment.
Who Can Be Placed in Restricted Housing
A person can only be sent to restricted housing if they are found guilty, at a hearing, of a serious rule violation such as assault, battery, weapons possession, or an escape attempt.4United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ashker v Newsom Before 2015, California routinely placed people in the SHU indefinitely based solely on validation as a prison gang member, whether or not they had broken any rule. The Ashker v. Governor of California settlement ended that practice and required a shift from a status-based to a behavior-based system.
Placement can also be used as protective custody when a person’s safety is verified as being in serious danger. In every case, the decision requires a finding that the person’s continued presence in general population poses an immediate threat. Staff must document the specific behavior justifying placement, not simply point to an affiliation or reputation.
Conditions and Out-of-Cell Time
Current regulations require that conditions in restricted housing approximate those in general population, with exceptions only for physical layout and necessary security measures.5Legal Information Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 15 3348 – Conditions of Restricted Housing Specific requirements include:
- A minimum of 20 hours per week out of cell, with at least 10 of those hours for exercise, spread over at least three days. The remaining hours can include group programs, education, and rehabilitative programming.
- The same food and portions as general population, though a sandwich may substitute for a hot lunch. Food deprivation as punishment is prohibited.
- No degrading clothing distinctions. Temporary adjustments are allowed only for security or self-harm prevention.
- Access to the same publications, books, and newspapers available to general population, with quantity limits allowed for security reasons.
- Access to education, commissary, library services, counseling, religious guidance, and recreation to the extent they can be provided without compromising safety.
The 20-hour minimum is a floor, not a guarantee. The regulation includes a carve-out allowing less time when “security and safety considerations preclude such activity,” which leaves prison officials substantial discretion.5Legal Information Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 15 3348 – Conditions of Restricted Housing
How Long a Placement Can Last
California can no longer impose indeterminate SHU sentences. No one can be held involuntarily in the Pelican Bay SHU for longer than five years for any reason.6Center for Constitutional Rights. Summary of Ashker v Governor of California Settlement Terms Anyone expected to remain on SHU status beyond 360 days must receive a documented annual review, and a person cannot be kept beyond the expiration of a determinate restricted housing term, or beyond 360 days, unless a classification committee specifically determines continued placement is required.
For gang-validated individuals found guilty of a SHU-eligible offense tied to gang activity, the Ashker settlement created a four-step, 24-month Step-Down Program.2California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action – Restricted Housing Units Each step lasts about six months, with gradually increasing privileges including phone calls and some rehabilitative programming. After completing the program, the person must be released to a general population setting unless they commit another serious rule violation during the step-down.
People in restricted housing can also earn credits. For every 20 hours of completed rehabilitative programming, they receive five days off their release date from restricted housing, up to 25 percent of their set term.
Rights Before Being Placed in Isolation
Before California can place someone in restricted housing for a disciplinary violation, the person is entitled to the procedural protections established in Wolff v. McDonnell:
- Written notice of the charges at least 24 hours before the hearing.
- An opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in their defense.
- A written statement from the decision-maker explaining the evidence relied upon.
Prison officials can restrict the right to call witnesses if they determine it would be hazardous to institutional safety, but they must document that determination.7Justia Law. Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539 (1974) That exception is invoked often in practice, and it is one of the areas advocates argue the process is inadequate.
Separately, the Supreme Court has held that placement in a highly restrictive facility imposes such an atypical and significant hardship that incarcerated people have a protected liberty interest in avoiding it, meaning the state must provide meaningful procedural protections before making the placement.8Legal Information Institute. Wilkinson v Austin
Special Protections for People With Mental Illness
The Coleman v. Brown litigation produced court orders that limit isolation of people with serious mental illness. In 2002, the court prohibited placing mentally ill individuals in standalone administrative segregation facilities. In 2014, the court found that the placement, duration, and quality of care for mentally ill people in Ad Seg created a substantial risk of serious psychological harm, and ordered CDCR to work under a special master to substantially reduce or eliminate placing mentally ill people in segregated housing, whether for disciplinary or non-disciplinary reasons. The litigation also prohibited discharging anyone from inpatient mental health care directly into isolation.
Challenging a Placement
If a person believes their placement violates constitutional standards, federal law requires exhausting all available internal grievance procedures before filing a lawsuit. This requirement comes from the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which bars any lawsuit about prison conditions until administrative remedies have been used up.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1997e – Suits by Prisoners The Supreme Court has recognized exceptions: exhaustion is not required when prison officials are consistently unwilling to provide relief, when the grievance process is so confusing that no ordinary person could navigate it, or when officials actively thwart the process through intimidation or deception.
Pregnant People in Custody
Assembly Bill 2527, signed in 2024, addresses solitary confinement for pregnant people in state prisons as part of a broader bill on nutrition and care standards for pregnant and postpartum women in custody. The law permits isolation of pregnant people for up to five days in certain cases rather than banning it outright. Advocates have expressed concern that the law effectively codifies, for the first time in California statute, that placing pregnant women in isolation is permissible within that five-day window.
A broader bill, Assembly Bill 2632 (the “California Mandela Act”), would have limited solitary confinement to no more than 15 consecutive days and banned it entirely for vulnerable groups including pregnant people, those under 26 or over 60, and people with certain mental or physical disabilities. Governor Newsom vetoed it in September 2022, calling the bill “overly broad.”10Governor of California. AB 2632 Veto Message The current restricted housing regulations fall well short of what that bill would have imposed.
County Jails Are Largely Not Covered
The regulations and court orders above apply to the state prison system run by CDCR. California’s 58 counties each operate their own jails with their own definitions of isolation and their own practices. There is no statewide statute setting maximum durations or conditions for isolation in county jails. The Board of State and Community Corrections sets some baseline standards and conducts inspections, but county sheriffs retain broad discretion over how and when isolation is used. The vetoed Mandela Act would have covered jails and detention centers; its failure left this gap intact. If you or someone you know is in a county jail rather than a state prison, the protections above largely do not apply.