Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2004

Prison Held Gang Members in Lockdown for Almost 2 Years

By Jenifer Warren
Times Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO For 20 months, scores of Latino gang members at Folsom State Prison were locked in their cells around the clock and deprived of regular exercise, visitors, religious services, hot meals, telephone calls and frequent showers, internal documents show.

At least one top Department of Corrections official has concluded that the extended harsh restrictions known in prison parlance as a lockdown amounted to violations of state policy and the inmates' constitutional rights.

Imposed as an emergency measure after a gang riot in April 2002, the lockdown continued month after month, even though inmates filed more than 100 grievances. Restrictions on exercise, visits and hot meals were eased in December, but even now some limitations remain in effect.

Newly appointed Corrections Director Jeanne Woodford confirmed that an internal department inquiry was underway. She would not discuss it, but called the length of the lockdown excessive.

"Should it have gone on for two years? In my opinion, it should not have gone on for two years," Woodford said in an interview.

National prison expert Craig Haney said, "a lockdown for two years is just about unheard of." Haney, a UC Santa Cruz psychology professor, added that "to confine inmates under those conditions for that long really presses against the psychological bounds of people's survival."

Haney and some state corrections administrators say the lockdown underscores the department's struggle to manage an ominous problem: the expanding power of gangs within the sprawling prison system. The department estimates that more than 100,000 inmates about two-thirds of the population belong to gangs or splinter groups.

Although officials have tried to limit violence by isolating leaders at a few maximum-security housing units, gangs and scores of splinter groups have continued to flourish, battling each other in a constant war for turf and control.

When riots occur, officials routinely impose a lockdown while they search cells for weapons and identify instigators.

Such was the case at Folsom, where all 3,500 inmates were locked down after the 2002 melee. Gradually, groups of convicts were released from lockdown after agreeing not to initiate further violence, officials said.

But one group members of assorted Northern California Latino gangs would not make such a pledge, a department spokeswoman said. Those were the inmates who ended up on lockdown for 20 months.

"When they refuse to agree not to attack someone, then, for obvious security reasons, we can't put them back on the yard," said department spokeswoman Terry Thornton.

That explanation rankled some inmate advocates. They said lockdowns often drag on as at Folsom in part because prison officials lack an effective strategy for preventing more violence when inmates are released to mingle again outdoors.

"Using a lockdown as a quick response to a security breach is a common corrections practice," said Kara Gotsch, public policy coordinator of the ACLU National Prison Project in Washington. "But something like this is astonishing. It sounds like there are major problems in California and that corrections administrators are letting the gangs run the prisons."


In December, then-Corrections Director Edward Alameida fired Folsom's warden, Diana Butler, citing the need for "new leadership" but making no mention of the lockdown. In January, 10 other top managers at the prison were reassigned, but again nothing was said about the lockdown.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has asked the U.S. attorney in Sacramento to investigate the April 2002 riot and its aftermath. Prison sources say the FBI is collecting documents and asking questions about the lockdown.

Folsom marks the latest episode in what some describe as a crisis engulfing California corrections. Over the last four months, disclosures have revealed problems ranging from extreme violence in juvenile lockups to a "revolving door" parole system that funnels two-thirds of all ex-convicts back to prison.

Legislators are holding oversight hearings on the troubles, and a commission appointed by Schwarzenegger has been asked to suggest reforms.

State Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) is among those pushing for change. She called the lockdown "indefensible" and a violation of federal standards.

"It's very disturbing," said Speier, who vowed to pursue an audit of lockdowns throughout the prison system. "It's like grounding a child for five years and forgetting all about him."

According to documents and interviews, the lockdown rose out of a period of escalating tensions between rival Latino gangs that prison officials label northern Hispanics and southern Hispanics.

Those tensions peaked April 8, 2002, when members of the southern group attacked their enemies on the exercise yard, resulting in a melee that left 24 injured and one officer permanently disabled.

Documents show that during the 20-month period after the riot, the northern Hispanics' conditions of confinement were severe. On Dec. 9, 2003, the department's then-regional administrator for northern prisons, Ana Ramirez-Palmer, sent a memo to Alameida outlining findings of a management assessment.

The memo expressed "significant concerns" about the lockdown and recommended that the U.S. Justice Department investigate "the apparent civil rights violations."

Another memo a few days later cited these problem areas, among others:

  Food: The inmates were not afforded two hot meals a day as required by department policy. The only hot meals provided were breakfast on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

  Showers: Because the inmates refused to wear soft-soled shoes, they were routinely denied showers. Some inmates, however, were allowed to use the outdoor showers three days a week.

  Exercise: At the start of the lockdown, all the inmates were given periodic access to telephones and a "mini-yard." Later on, some of them were denied all exercise.

  Canteen: The inmates were not allowed to make purchases at the prison store, where convicts typically buy snacks, hygiene items and stamps. "Since they could not purchase stamps and were not indigent, they could not mail out any correspondence to family or friends," the memo said.

  Visiting: Except for Dec. 26, 2002, the locked-down inmates were not permitted any visitors.

  Religious services: None. In addition, the prison's chaplains and spiritual advisors "failed to provide face-to-face interaction by walking the tiers."

The memo also noted that the inmates' appeals pertaining to the living conditions were not processed according to policy.

A review of appeals filed by several inmates showed that many of their complaints centered on the quality of the food.

In one complaint, dated Dec. 14, 2002, inmate Harold Matus said he and fellow inmates were being served peanut butter and bread as a main course three times a day. Such a diet, he said, violated department regulations that require balanced nutrition and at least two hot meals a day.

The complaint ended up at the director's level, where it was reviewed and denied by a staff member on behalf of Alameida. That decision cited what appeared to be the department's overall justification for the lockdown that the warden has the authority to "temporarily suspend the normal operations" of a prison to maintain safety and security.

Shortly after receiving the memos, Alameida resigned for personal reasons.

Woodford, the new department director, acknowledged that "we do have a ways to go" in controlling gang violence. Several years ago, she noted, the state considered adopting a program that motivates inmates to break free of gangs.

The department's model for the program, however, carried a high price tag, and the idea was shelved.

One high-level corrections administrator, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said the lockdown should never have lasted so long.

"It's insane," the official said. "After you impose a lockdown, the goal is to do your cell searches and investigation and then unlock as soon as possible. If you're afraid that will lead to more violence, you use your head and scatter the troublemakers at other prisons. You don't just sit there and keep them locked down and hope the problem goes away."
Times staff writer Tim Reiterman contributed to this report.