District courts that have considered similar allegations at the pleading stage have routinely found them sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery. See Ashker v. Brown , No. 09-cv-5796, 2013 WL 1435148, at *7 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2013) (finding allegations that the possibility of debriefing did not offer a meaningful path out of solitary confinement at California prisons plausible at the pleading stage); Fanaro v. Cty. of Contra Costa , No. 09-cv-03247, 2019 WL 5191018, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2019) (similar); Gonzales v. Guirbino , No. 14-cv-00173, 2016 WL 1599449 at *2-5 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2016) (similar). Similarly, the majority relies extensively on a "lengthy, thorough" 1995 district court decision in Madrid v. Gomez , 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995) that held that California prisons could rely on the fact of a relatively old STG validation -- even in the "absence of gang-related activity or association over some period of time" -- to continue to hold a prisoner in solitary confinement.
Of particular relevance, several courts have found—based on the empirical evidence set forth above—that solitary confinement poses an objective risk of serious psychological and emotional harm to inmates, and therefore can violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g. , Palakovic v. Wetzel , 854 F.3d 209, 225–26 (3d Cir. 2017) ("acknowledg[ing] the robust body of legal and scientific authority recognizing the devastating mental health consequences caused by long-term isolation in solitary confinement"); Ashker v. Brown , No. C 09-5796, 2013 WL 1435148, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) ; Wilkerson v. Stalder , 639 F.Supp.2d 654, 678–79 (M.D. La. 2007) ("It is obvious that being housed in isolation in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day for over three decades results in serious deprivations of basic human needs."); McClary v. Kelly , 4 F.Supp.2d 195, 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) ("[T]hat prolonged isolation from social and environmental stimulation increases the risk of developing mental illness does not strike this Court as rocket science."). We agree.
The class in Ashker v. Governor, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW (N.D. Cal.) (referred to as “the class action” going forward) which litigated the long-term confinement of inmates (including Plaintiff) in secure housing units (SHU), now move for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff's upcoming opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 115); see Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 CW, 2013 WL 1435148, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (providing background regarding class action allegations). According to the motion, the “class action resulted in a Settlement Agreement in 2015 which changed CDCR's SHU policies and practices and, inter alia, prohibited retaliation against the named plaintiffs and class members.
In the Ashker case, a class of prisoners argued that CDCR's practice of “assign[ing] inmates to the SHU based solely on their membership in or association with prison gangs, without regard for the inmates' actual behavior” violated the class's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Ashker, No. C 09-5796-CW, 2013 WL 1435148, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013). CDCR settled with the class of inmates.
In Ashker, a class of prison inmates argued that CDCR's practice of "assign[ing] inmates to the SHU based solely on their membership in or association with prison gangs, without regard for the inmate's 'actual behavior'" violated the class's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 CW, 2013 WL 1435148, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013). CDCR settled with the class of inmates.
Johnston's uninterrupted seventeen years of solitary confinement subjected him to conditions sufficiently serious and detrimental that a reasonable jury could find a violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. SeeJohnson , 209 F. Supp. 3d at 777 ; Wilson , 501 U.S. at 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321 ; see alsoShoatz , 2016 WL 595337, at *7–8 ; Ashker v. Brown , 2013 WL 1435148, at *4–6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) ; Wilkerson v. Stalder , 639 F. Supp. 2d 654, 677–78 (M.D. La. 2007) . b. Subjective Element
(ECF No. 20 at 2.) Defendants further argue that plaintiff's reliance on Ashker (Ashker v. Brown, 2013 WL 1435148, No. C-09-5796 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013)) is misplaced because it did nothing to change the "some evidence" standard used to validate plaintiff and plaintiff's claims were unaffected by the Ashker settlement. (Id.) LEGAL STANDARDS
However, lack of access to any means of communicating with people outside of the institution may be unconstitutional. See Overton, 539 U.S. at 135 (suggesting that access to alternatives was part of justification for concluding visitation restrictions were constitutional); Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 2013 WL 1435148 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2013) (concluding that "prolonged social isolation," which included lack of telephone access and contact visits, met objective prong of Eighth Amendment test). Only where all visitation privileges have been revoked permanently or for a substantial period of time will the deprivation take on constitutional proportions.
However, lack of access to any means of communicating with people outside of prison may be unconstitutional. See Overton, 539 U.S. at 135 (suggesting that access to alternatives was part of justification for concluding visitation restrictions were constitutional); Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 2013 WL 1435148 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2013)(concluding that "prolonged social isolation," which included lack of telephone access and contact visits, met objective prong of Eighth Amendment test).
At this stage of proceedings, these allegations are sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion. See, e.g., Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 CW, 2013 WL 1435148, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (finding that allegations that prison officials were "given explicit notice" of the plaintiffs' injuries "by way of administrative grievances, written complaints, and inmate hunger strikes" were sufficient to survive the higher deliberate indifference standard at the pleading stage). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement violation relating to exercise and sensory deprivation.