Justia Lawyer Rating
Best Attorneys of America
AVVO
ASLA
Super Lawyers
Superior DUI Attorney 2017
10 Best Law Firms
Top One Percent 2017
AVVO
The National Trial Lawyers
ASLA
ELA
Best of Thervo 2017
NACDA
10 Best Law Firms
Criminal Defense Attorneys

Prison Housing: Custody Levels, Sex Offender, Single Cells

Each inmate in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is placed at an appropriate facility for the security level of that person.  Once at that facility, the person is assigned a “custody level” that affects one’s out-of-cell time, frequency of supervision and eligibility for programs.  This custody level designation is determined when the inmate arrives at his or her assigned institution.
The custody levels, from most secure to least secure, are as follows:
  1. Maximum Custody: This is housing in segregation units, also known as “a prison within a prison” away from the general population.  These Administrative Segregation Units (ASU’s) are also known as “the hole,” “lock up,” and “solitary.”  All assignments and activities must be within the housing unit.  Often the person spends all his or her time in his cell, usually with a cell mate, with few to no work assignments or programming opportunities.  These are often to punish someone who has committed a serious disciplinary offense, needs protection from other people, or poses a threat to safety and security.
  2. Close Custody: This is housing in cells in Level II, III or IV general population facilities, except that women in Close Custody status may be housed either in a cell or a Close Custody dormitory.  Activities and assignments are within the facility security perimeter and mostly only during daytime hours.  The CDCR has particular rules on the factors to be considered in assigning a person to Close Custody.  Such factors that require Close Custody include a lengthy sentence; history of escape, detainer for an offense with a possible penalty of 50 years or more, some serious disciplinary offenses, and having special security concerns.  If a person does not meet the Close Custody case factors, they cannot be placed in Close Custody until the DRB approves it.  The DRB is a CDCR Headquarters-level classification committee made up of high-level members.  Many people can be considered for a reduction in custody level after serving a period of time in Close Custody (the time period depends on the reason for Close Custody assignment) without any recent serious disciplinary violations.  15 C.C.R. § 3377.2
  3. Medium A Custody:  This is housing in cells or dormitories within the security perimeter.  Activities and assignments are within the facility security perimeter during daylight and evenings.
  4. Medium B Custody: This is the same as Medium A Custody, except that daytime assignments may be outside the security perimeter, but on facility grounds.
  5. Minimum A Custody:  This is housing in cells or dormitories within the facility security perimeter.  Work assignments and activities may be inside or outside the security perimeter.
  6. Minimum B Custody: This is housing in cells or dormitories on facility grounds, in a camp, in a Minimum Support Facility (MSF) or in a community-based facility.  Work assignments and activities may be either on or off prison grounds. 15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(a).
In addition to the custody designation, an inmate’s classification will include a Restricted Custody or “R” suffix if they have committed certain types of sex offenses.  A classification committee may also assign an “R” suffix if police or prosecution reports indicate that a person has been arrested or detained for such an offense, even if they are not in prison for that offense.  The DRB may approve an “R” suffix even when such documentation is not available, if there is some other indication that an “R” suffix is appropriate.  15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(b); In re Farley (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1362-1364, 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 108; 15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(b)(5).

A Unit Classification Committee (UCC) may find that an inmate no longer needs an “R” suffix, and can refer them to the Institution Classification Committee (ICC) to consider removing the suffix. 15 C.C.R. 33771.(b)(6). 

Once an “R” suffix has been rejected or removed, it cannot be reinstated except by the DRB, unless there is compelling new information supporting reinstatement. 15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(b)(8); DOM § 62010.4.3.1.4. 

A court will uphold a classification committee’s decision to impose an “R” suffix as long as it is based on “some evidence.” In re Wilson (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 661, 668-670, 249 Cal. Rptr. 36.

The CDCR’s normal policy is to house two people in each cell in men’s prisons. 15 C.C.R. 3269 (a person who refuses to share a cell with another person in prison may be subject to disciplinary action.  15 C.C.R. § 3269(g)). 

Furthermore, many people in men’s prisons are housed in large dormitories and most people in women’s prisons are housed in eight-person rooms. 

However, single celling can be considered for people who have a history of abusing other people in prison, or a history of being abused by another person in prison in their cell, or medical needs.  A classification committee will use an “S” suffix to indicate that a person must be housed in a single cell because they cannot be housed safely in a dormitory or double cell.  The “S” suffix may be removed if they later can be housed safely in a cell with another person. 15 C.C.R. 3169(d) – (f); 15 C.C.R. 3377.1(c); CDCR, Memorandum re:: Inmate Housing Assignment Considerations during the Screening and Housing Process (Jan. 19, 2016).

This article would not be possible without reference to the excellent treatise, “The California Prison and Parole Law Handbook” by the Prison Law Office in Folsom.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona