Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 38, September 20, 2024
The Departmental Review Board (DRB) provides the
Secretary's final review of classification issues which are referred by an
institution head for a resolution or decision at the headquarters level. The
DRB decision serves as the Secretary's level decision which is not appealable
and concludes the incarcerated/supervised person's departmental administrative
remedy of such issues.
(a) Composition
of the DRB:
(1) The director or deputy
director of the Division of Adult Institutions (chairperson).
(2) The director or deputy director of the
Division of Adult Parole Operations.
(3) The chief of classification services
(shall abstain on DRB issues resulting from a difference of opinion between an
institution head and the chief of classification services).
(4) The chief of health services.
(b) Two members shall constitute a
quorum.
(c) The DRB shall meet at
the call of the chairperson.
(d)
Referrals shall be made to the DRB when:
(1)
An institution head is unable to resolve a difference of opinion with the chief
of classification services.
(2) An
institution head believes a clarification of departmental policy of statewide
importance is required.
(3) An
institution head believes a DRB level decision for placement of an incarcerated
person is required because of an unusual threat to the safety of persons or
public interest in the case; e.g., commuted or modified death
sentence.
(4) A difference between
a Board of Parole Hearing's program placement order and the department's
policies cannot be resolved.
(5) An
out-of-state or federal prison placement is recommended by the institution
classification committee for a Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC),
PC Section 11190, an Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), PC Section 11189, or
a Federal Placement, PC Section 2911.
(6) Meritorious credit is recommended by an
institution classification committee to reduce an incarcerated person's period
of confinement pursuant to Penal Code Section
2935.
(7) The incarcerated person's current
placement was ordered by the DRB and there is no documentation in the
incarcerated person's central file to indicate that the DRB has relinquished
responsibility for the incarcerated person's placement.
(8) An institution head determines there is a
substantial threat to the incarcerated person's personal safety, should they be
released to the general population.
(A) Any
offender who is denied housing in a General Population (GP) setting based on
possible safety concerns shall have an investigation into the incarcerated
person's safety concerns completed by designated institution staff.
(B) Upon conclusion of the investigation, the
safety concern evaluation shall be reviewed by ICC and referred to the DRB in
accordance with section
3376(d)(3)(D)1.
(9) An institution head determines there
continues to be a demonstrated threat to the incarcerated person's personal
safety and the incarcerated person has been housed in Restricted Custody
General Population (RCGP) based upon these safety concerns for a two-year
period. Additional DRB review for safety concerns shall occur every two years
from initial placement date.
(A) If the DRB
determines that there is a substantial threat to the incarcerated person's
personal safety should they be released to the GP as determined by a
preponderance of the evidence, the DRB retains the discretion, in accordance
with existing authority, to house that incarcerated person in alternate
appropriate non-restricted housing commensurate with their case factors, such
as alternate general population housing or RCGP. The DRB shall articulate
substantial justification for the need for alternative placement.
(10) An institution head
determines upon completion of a Determinate RHU term that overwhelming evidence
exists supporting an immediate threat to the security of the institution or the
safety of others.
(11) An
institution head determines an incarcerated person has a substantial
disciplinary history, consisting of no less than three (3) RHU/SHU terms within
the past five (5) years, and cannot be housed in a less-restrictive
environment.
(12) An Institution
Classification Committee recommends that a condemned incarcerated person be
housed in a facility with a security level lower than Level II.
(13) An Institution Classification Committee
recommends that an incarcerated person serving a sentence of life without
possibility of parole (LWOP) be housed in a facility with a security level
lower than Level II.
(e)
The DRB retains discretion in determining appropriate housing for incarcerated
persons against whom there is a substantial threat to the incarcerated person's
personal safety, should they be released to general population housing, where
the DRB determines a preponderance of evidence exists to require placement in
alternate appropriate non-restricted housing commensurate with the incarcerated
person's current case factors.
(f)
The DRB may retain an incarcerated person in the RHU on Administrative RHU
status if they have determined that case factors are such that overwhelming
evidence exists supporting an immediate threat to the security of the
institution or the safety of others, and substantial justification has been
articulated of the need for RHU placement.
(g) An annual assessment of the incarcerated
person's case factors and disciplinary behavior associated with the current
Administrative RHU status is mandated.
(h) Decisions of the DRB shall be in writing
and implemented within 30 calendar days after the decision is made.
Note: Authority cited: Section 5058, Penal Code.
Reference: Sections 3601, 3602, 5054, 5068 and 11191, Penal Code; Sections 8550
and 8567, Government Code; Governor's Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency
Proclamation dated October 4, 2006; Sandin v. Connor (1995) 515 U.S. 472; and
Madrid v. Gomez (N.D. Cal. 1995) 889 F.Supp. 1146.
Note: Authority cited: Section
5058, Penal
Code. Reference: Sections
5054,
5068 and
11191, Penal
Code; Sections
8550 and
8567,
Government Code; Governor's Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation
dated October 4, 2006; Sandin v. Connor (1995) 515 U.S. 472; and Madrid v.
Gomez (N.D. Cal. 1995) 889 F.Supp. 1146.
