Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10562&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:54:00+00:00

Document:
On February 24, 1995, an African-American prisoner of the California Department of Corrections filed a pro se suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the Department's violated his constitutional rights by racially segregating prisoners and extorting money from inmates by overcharging for telephone use. The Plaintiff was frequently transferred among California prisons and was always initially double-celled with another African-American upon his arrival to a new prison. The Department contented that the double celling policy was a legitimate security measure that prevented violence caused by racial gangs.
The Department of Corrections moved to dismiss, and the Plaintiff filed a series of amended complaints, culminating in a Third Amended Complaint. The District Court dismissed it for failure to state a claim and the Plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The District Court was instructed to appoint Johnson pro bono counsel on remand. Johnson v. State of Cal., 207 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2000).
On remand, the District Court (Chief Judge Consuelo B. Marshall) granted summary judgment for prison officials on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals (Circuit Judge O'Scannlain) affirmed, holding that the Department policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Johnson v. State of California, 321 F.3d 791 (9th Cir.2003). Plaintiff's request for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied. Johnson v. California, 336 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Johnson v. California, 540 U.S. 1217, 124 S.Ct. 1505, 158 L.Ed.2d 151 (2004).
The Supreme Court found that plaintiff's equal protection challenge to the CDC's policy should have been reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. As the lower courts applied a lesser standard of review to plaintiff's challenge, the decision was reversed and remanded. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005).
Upon remand to the Ninth Circuit, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the stated goal of the Department of Corrections was to treat all prisoners without subjection to any form of racial segregation. To achieve that goal, the Department agreed to integrate cells, by creating housing protocols for assigning cellmates, starting first with reception centers and then general population cells. Details of the integration plan were to be set forth in a Confidential Draft Organizational Plan, which was to be provided to plaintiff's counsel.
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provided that the Plaintiff would receive a payment of $12,000. The case would be remanded to the District Court for a determination of attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Description California inmate challenged the Department's policy of racially segregating inmates in reception units.
The Oyez Project, Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.