Johnson v. California
Johnson sued the California Department of Corrections (CDC), alleging that the CDC's reception center housing policy violated his constitutional rights by assigning cell mates to inmates on the basis of race. Johnson is an African-American prisoner serving a sentence for various felonies. Since he entered the California prison system in 1987, he has been transferred to several different facilities. At each, he was double-celled with another African-American inmate during the initial 60-day reception period. The CDC uses several factors to determine double-cell housing placements, including gender, age, classification score, case concerns, custody concerns, mental and physical health, enemy situations, gang affiliation, background, history, custody designation, and race. Although race is only one of many factors, it is a dominant factor; according to the CDC, the chances of an inmate being assigned a cell mate of another race is “[p]retty close” to zero percent. The CDC considers race when making an initial housing assignment because, in its experience, race is very important to inmates and it plays a significant role in antisocial behavior.
The district court granted summary judgment to the administrators of the CDC on the grounds of qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on different grounds. Applying a deferential equal protection test for examining the constitutional rights of prisoners from Turner v. Safley, the court of appeals determined that there was a “common sense” link between the temporary housing policy and the CDC's concerns about increased racial violence in the prison system. Johnson failed to overcome the presumption that the CDC administrators had acted constitutionally, and so the policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Questions Presented:
1. Is a state's practice of routine racial segregation of state prisoners for at least a 60-day period subject to the same strict scrutiny generally
applicable to all other challenges to intentional racial segregation, or is it excused from such scrutiny and subject only to the more relaxed review afforded under Turner v. Safley , 482
U.S. 78 (1987)?
2. Does California's practice of routine racial segregation of state prisoners for at least a 60-day period violate the Equal Protection Clause?
