On July 16, 2014, a male prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California government. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that California's blanket exclusion of male prisoners from the Alternative Custody Program (ACP) violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ACP is a community-based program aimed at reuniting low-level offenders with their families and providing inmates with rehabilitative services within the community. The plaintiff is a male prisoner with two children and an ailing mother with Stage IV colon cancer whom he wished to care for. He filed the lawsuit and requested a preliminary injunction, because he was rejected by CDCR from participating in the program for no other reason than that he is a man.

As originally enacted by the Legislature in 2010, the ACP could have been open to at least some men, although men would still have been required to be "primary caregivers of dependent children ... immediately prior to incarceration" while women applicants faced no such restriction. Nonetheless, when CDCR began offering the ACP in 2011, it limited access to female inmates and excluded all men. The Governor subsequently signed a statutory amendment writing this discrimination into law.

Defendants answered plaintiffs complaint, claiming that the plaintiff was not “similarly situated” to female prisoners for the purposes of equal protection analysis and that the ACP serves objectives that address the specific needs and unique characteristics of female inmates. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from continuing to exclude male prisoners from the ACP because of their gender.

On January 30, 2015, both parties moved for summary judgement. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement on September 9, 2015, stating that prohibiting male inmates from applying to the ACP was unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants from applying or enforcing the provision excluding men from the ACP. 2015 WL 5255422.

The defendants appealed on October 9, 2015, but on March 16, 2016, the parties voluntarily dismissed the appeal for unknown reasons. On April 14, 2016, the defendants filed a report in district court, outlining the changes it made in developing and implementing an Alternative Custody Program for male inmates. The defendants also submitted a copy of amended regulations governing the program, reflecting that it was now open to all regardless of gender. The case is now closed.

Jessica Kincaid - 08/04/2014
Elena Malik - 11/06/2017


compress summary