Stoneham

Stoneham v. Rushen

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 3d 729·188 Cal. Rptr. 130·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 2162
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1982Civ. 53017California2,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

Racanelli, J.

This appeal arises against the following background: Under the provisions of the Penal Code (to which all statutory references apply unless otherwise noted) the Director of Corrections (Director), as manager of the state prison system, is charged with the responsibility for the “care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment” of all prisoners (§ 5054). Upon arrival at a state prison facility, an inmate is required to undergo an examination of his personal background which thereafter serves as a basis of the Director’s decision to “classify [the prisoner] and determine the prison in which the [prisoner] shall be confined.” (§ 5068.) The prisoner may also undergo reexaminations to determine whether existing orders should be modified. (§ 5068.)

Historically this classification process entailed an evaluation by a classification committee of the inmate’s offense, personal life history and institutional behavior. In February 1980, however, pursuant to an “administrative bulletin” from the Director, the staff of the Department of Corrections (Department) began to employ a classification score sheet (form 839) for new male inmates and a classification review sheet…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.